We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We Asked

For your views on changing some free services to charged-for services as a way to make savings, and how these changes might affect you.

You Said

We received 201 responses:

27% of respondents thought that the Council should consider introducing a charge for bulky waste collections to make savings.

36% of respondents thought that the Council should consider a charge for DIY waste to make savings.

192 responses were received about achieving savings by other means, including but not limited to, alternate weekly or fortnightly collections, reducing the free bulky waste collections allowance, limiting the number of free tips at the Household Waste Recycling Centres and increasing enforcement to generate revenue through fines.

We Did

A paper containing the consultation results will be presented to the Council’s Executive to consider whether to introduce charges.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposed 20mph zone for the Charnor Road area.


You Said

We received one response to the online consultation from outside the consultation area. This was against both the proposed 20mph speed limit and the proposed traffic calming.

A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 173 responses to this, representing a 20% response rate. Of these responses, 160 people (92%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 145 (84%) 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 February 2017.

We Asked

We asked for your comments and level of support for our proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), which would give police additional powers to enforce restrictions, and in some cases make arrests.

 

You Said

There were 658 respondents.

79% knew what NPS were.

66% had had an experience with someone they suspected of using NPS.

77% thought NPS were an issue in Leicester.

38% had experience of both individuals and groups using NPS.

11% said their families had been affected by NPS.

Specific problems experienced were:

  • 65% littering
  • 57% poor health
  • 55% intimidation
  • 52% mood swings
  • 49% noise
  • 49% verbal abuse
  • 47% physical abuse
  • 31% vulnerability.

50% experienced problems with NPS every day.

89% thought more public awareness was needed.

88% thought more could be done to prevent people from using NPS.

86% supported the use of a citywide NPS Order, which would give the police additional powers to deal with problems caused by NPS.

 

We Did

We are taking into account the 86% support for a citywide NPS Order as we consider a decision.

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on the way that we provide neighbourhood services in the north east area of the city. Our proposals included changing the way that we use community buildings to deliver services. The proposals were drawn up following a previous engagement exercise where we asked for more general views on what neighbourhood services might look like in the future.

You Said

You said that there is good support for some of our proposals, including making improvements to Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre, keeping Thurnby Lodge Youth and Community Centre and developing community access to Hamilton Library. That community groups need training, guidance and support so that they understand what is expected of them if they decide to take over the day-to-day running of community buildings. That there are strong concerns about the proposals for moving Belgrave Library into Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre at this time. That there are concerns about changing lunch club provision at Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre. That there are concerns about amalgamating services into one of the two buildings at Rushey Mead. That alternative suggestions should be investigated for the two buildings in the Netherhall area. That there are concerns around the consequences for existing groups, if centres change to be managed by outside organisations rather than by the council.  That there are concerns with regard to increased travel distance for some customers where services are moved to other centres.

We Did

The proposals have been updated following consultation. Proposals mean that services provided in the north east area of the city are protected. Several buildings in the area will have a new future providing a wider range of neighbourhood services under one roof. Belgrave Library will not move into Belgrave Neighbourhood Centre at this time. We will provide support sessions for community organisations to advise them on how to develop a business case if they wish to take over the running of an available building. We will review the need to undertake further consultation to explore alternative suggestions made with regard to community buildings at Netherhall. Plans are being developed for all of the buildings that are no longer required for community use. This means that they will not remain empty, but will either be reused, or they will be demolished so that the land can be used for housing development, or ownership of the building will be transferred to another group or organisation. The council will work with existing groups to ensure that their needs are considered when any changes in the arrangements for the management of buildings are agreed. After these proposals have been considered by the council’s scrutiny committee an executive decision will be made.

We Asked

We asked people to tell us the possible impact of five proposals to re-configure our homeless services to ensure the most vulnerable receive the support they need.
 

You Said

We received 200 responses to the on-line consultation.

75% of people thought the proposal to reduce the council’s support housing for single people and couples by 60 units would have a negative impact and could lead to more homelessness.

68% of people thought the proposal to reduce the number of offender accommodation we commission from 30 to 15 would have a negative impact and could increase the risk of re-offending.

An equal number of people (33%) thought a review of how support was provided to people at the Dawn Centre and Border House would have negative or positive impact. 

People said they needed more information about the outcome of the review to comment fully.

81.5% of people said the ending of grant subsidies for Leicestershire Cares, the Centre Project and One Roof, Leicester would have a negative impact.  People felt vulnerable adults would not be able to access support and social isolation would increase.

54% of people said the ending of the specific floating support services for offenders would have a negative impact. The loss of expertise and knowledge of this group of people could mean they are provided with less support for generic floating support services.

 

We Did

We will be reviewing our proposals following the feedback and are developing further options.

These will be considered by the Housing Scrutiny Commission on 15 November 2016 before an Executive decision is made.

We Asked

We asked how important our objectives for improving parking over the next three years are to you. We also asked for your comments on the actions outlined in the plan, and for you to tell us about anything missing from our proposals that should be addressed.

 

You Said

The online consultation had 239 respondents.

The objectives that the highest number of people said were ‘quite’ or ‘very important’ and therefore should be prioritised were:

Improving traffic flow (92%)

Improving air quality (88%)

People noted the link between traffic congestion and air quality and said we needed to explain more clearly how our plans would tackle air pollution. Suggestions for solving congestion were very varied but the overall sentiment favoured improving public transport services, encouraging alternative means of travel around the city such as cycling, and improving congestion hotspots in the road system. We needed to say more about these things in our plans.

Improving safety around schools (87%)

Clearer parking restrictions (83%)

Stronger enforcement of parking restrictions (82%)

In many comments people cited the nuisance or danger to other road users and pedestrians caused by inconsiderate parking as very good reasons for making parking rules clearer and enforcing them more widely. Discouraging illegal and dangerous parking around schools was often mentioned, as was the importance of helping parents and pupils choose safe and healthy ways to travel to school.

Improving parking availability for business, leisure and shopping in city neighbourhoods (77%)

Improving car parking in the city centre received a mixed response, (66% against 31% who said it wasn’t important or had no opinion). The most frequent comments were that parking prices should be reduced, and that parking for residents and shoppers in city neighbourhoods should be improved.

Improving customer services, our online information and improving city car parks were all lower priorities. Most comments were about offering more modern payment methods.

 

We Did

The Economic Development Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission met on 1 December 2016 and approved our next steps to:

  • Review our proposed actions in light of the results of the survey, dealing with the current day-to-day issues around parking but also ensuring our actions support the Council’s wider plans to improve air quality and build in sustainability for the future.
  • Update and publish our action plan at the beginning of 2017.

We Asked

We invited members of the public and local businesses and organisations to comment on proposed changes to their local council tax reduction / support scheme – mainly whether the current level of support should be changed.

You Said

Charnwood Borough Council response:

A greater percentage of respondents reacted positively to Option 1 (no change to the current rate of support at 85%) than alternative 0ptions (reduce the level of support to 80%, 75% or 70% respectively).

Leicester City Council response:

A greater percentage of respondents reacted positively to Option 1 (no change to the current rate of support at 80%) than Option 2 or 3 (reduce the level of support to 75% and 70% respectively).

Melton Borough Council response

Although the most popular individual choice on the four options for the maximum council tax was for no change, overall 32% who said yes voted for no change, 69% felt that some increase should be made.

53% of responders wanted the Band D limit introduced; 52%  wanted the capital limit reduced to £6K; 58% wanted CTS rules aligned to HB rules; 76% said CTS claimants should work with the council to keep their CTS; 58% said that the council should remove all or part of the CTS if someone doesn’t work with the council.

 

We Did

Charnwood Borough Council response:

We considered the results of the consultation alongside other evidence and concluded that we would not be introducing any changes to the current scheme at this time.

Leicester City Council response:

We will not be introducing any changes to the current scheme but will review the situation in one year’s time.

Melton Borough Council response

Looking at the overall impact of the changes on individuals directly affected and for the wider community, the council has reduced the maximum CTS from 88% to 85% (below the options consulted upon); made no change to the Band D or Capital limits; aligned CTS rules to the HB rules and will look to introduce a personal support package from 1 April 2017

 

We Asked

For your views about how satisfied you were with the garden waste collection service and for the level of support for changing the length of service year beyond March-October.

You Said

1,007 residents responded to the online survey. 96.37% of customers were either fairly or very satisfied with the service.

Of the different service lengths suggested, 32% of respondents (the majority) stated ideally they would like collections to run between March-November. 76% of respondents wanted the service to run for longer in order to increase the number of collections. When asked if respondents would pay £46 to cover the full costs of the service and receive collections from March-November, 48% said no and 46.5% said yes.

We Did

We have extended collections to March-November at a cost of £40 (when paying by direct debit) and £45 (when paying by card or cheque) in 2016/17. The cost increase covers providing additional collections in November and the declining available funding to subsidise the service. The service has been subsidised by a government grant since 2014.

We Asked

Your thoughts and level of support for Leicester City Council and Leicestershire Police to continue to enforce dog fouling and control issues within the city.
 

You Said

An overwhelming level of support was given, with a minimum percentage of 84% responding yes to each question to support enforcement of dog fouling and control issues in the city.
 

We Did

Responding to the level of support we will now start the process for a new enforcement legislation in accordance to The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to enable Leicester City Council and Leicestershire Police to continue to enforce dog fouling and control issues within the city.

We Asked

We proposed changing the speed limit on the streets around the Northfields Area from 30mph to 20mph. This includes the residential streets around Northfields House Primary School.

You Said

13 people responded to the online consultation, 11 (85%) were in favour and two (15%) against the proposal.

We also carried out a paper consultation to residents in the area - 1,087 letters were delivered. 315 replied which was a 29% response rate.

295 (94%) were in favour of the proposals, 14 (4%) against and six (2%) were unsure.

We Did

As a result of the support of the proposal, the City Mayor has approved the implementation of the scheme which is scheduled to come into force at the end of January 2017.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposed 20mph zone for the Fairfax Road area.
 
 

You Said

We received 18 responses to the online consultation. Thirteen were in favour of  the 20mph speed limit.

A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 244 responses to this, representing a 27% response rate.

Of these responses, 201 people (82%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit.
 

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 February 2017.

We Asked

Which of the two options presented for St George’s Churchyard you wanted the city council to take forward to improve the churchyard and create an open, public space.


We also asked which of the additional features you would like to see installed:

  • outdoor gym
  • Architecture Feature Lighting scheme
  • Mermaids artwork

You Said

49.8% preferred Option 1 (plans proposed 26 trees for removal)

33.1% were in favour of Option 2 (plans proposed nine trees for removal)

64% did not support the installation of the outdoor gym

85% supported the installation of an Architecture Feature Lighting scheme.

51% supported the relocation of the Mermaids artwork

We Did

Following the consultation, we are continuing to develop the plans ahead of a planning application for the scheme.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the draft proposal of the St George’s Cultural Quarter Action Plan.

You Said

62 survey responses were received and a further three stakeholders submitted letters.
 
80.6% supported the themes and actions put forward in the plan.

The three most favoured actions were:
- Enhancing the historic character and vibrancy of the area was the most supported action
- Improve cleanliness and general maintenance
- Support more cafes, bars and restaurants

The quantitative data showed theme 2 (an attractive and well connected public realm) to be the most supported theme - more actions were supported in this theme than any other

The qualitative data identified that theme 1 (an exciting and creative place to live, work and do business) received the most comments.

All three letters received from the stakeholders supported the draft Action Plan.

We Did

We are now reviewing all of the comments and re-drafting the Action Plan taking these in to consideration.

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on how neighbourhood services in the north east area of the city could be transformed. We asked for information on how the services are used now and for opinions on how buildings and services could change.

You Said

  • that the services provided were more important than particular buildings.
  • that libraries and the functions they perform, and likewise the activities in community and youth centres, are important for local people.
  • that the services could be combined into fewer buildings, based on usage, location and proximity of other sites.
  • that there should be better advertising of community spaces that are available for hire to increase usage and income.
  • that money could be raised by increasing community room hire charges and by reorganising the use of space in some buildings to accommodate more hires.

We Did

We are now analysing the responses received in more detail and using these to develop a draft set of proposals. We will consult on these separately when they have been developed.

We Asked

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

You Said

We received six responses to the online consultation. Six were in favour of  the 20mph speed limit and four were in favour of the proposed speed cushions.

A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 135 responses to this, representing a 22% response rate. Of these responses, 128 people (95%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 112 people (83%) were in favour with the proposed speed cushions.
 

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 October 2016.

We Asked

Whether the forum made of 26 local residents, business people & councillors, who will be responsible for delivery of the proposed Knighton Neighbourhood Plan where appropriate to become a defined neighbourhood forum and whether the constitution was appropriate for this proposed forum.

You Said

We received a total of 3 responses during the consultation period, two where in favour of approving the forum and constitution and one was against. The main issues raised were that neighbourhood planning should be supported in the city however some issues were raised over what properties should or should not be included within the Neighbourhood Area.

We Did

Due to the fact that none of the received representations related directly to either the consultation or the proposed members of the forum, the forum and consultation were formally adopted by Leicester City Council on the 7th September 2016. 

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposed 20mph zone for the Keyham Lane area.
 

You Said

We received five responses to the online consultation. Three were in favour of  the 20mph speed limit and three were in favour of the proposed speed cushions.

A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 38 responses to this, representing a 19% response rate.

Of these responses, 33 (87%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 20 (53%) were in favour with the proposed speed cushions.
 

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 April 2017.

We Asked

We asked you for your thoughts and comments on the proposed 0-19 Healthy child Programme in Leicester.

You Said

  1. The questions in this consultation don’t reflect what I want to say about these service
  2. Staff can’t work across the whole 0-19 age range.
  3. Please can we have some weekend clinics

 

We Did

  1. We visited the group, collect their thoughts and ensured they were represented in the service specification
  2. We clarified that we expect the most appropriate Healthy Child Programme (HCP) staff to work with a child, and this may mean overlap between the current 0-5, 5-19, but we would not expect all HCP staff to be working across the whole age range as a matter our course
  3. We have included in the service specification that the provider meets the needs of the service users- having services available at locations and times that suit the service user

 

We Asked

We asked for your views on the school term and holiday dates patterns for amending the  2017/18 academic year and setting the 2018/19 and 2019/20 academic years.


You Said

The majority of respondents supported the proposed change to the 2017/18 date pattern. For 2018/19, a clear majority of respondents (65%) supported Option B, despite the fact that adopting this option would mean the City and County Councils would have different term date arrangements for that academic year.
 
For 2019/20 (where Leicestershire County Council have not yet published any dates), a majority of respondents supported Option A over Option B.

We Did

The 2017/18 pattern is changing from the version previously published, and the 2018/19 and 2019/20 dates have been set for the first time. The options supported by a majority of respondents for each academic year were adopted.
 
Please visit www.leicester.gov.uk/termdates to view our agreed term dates
 

We Asked

  • Is there anything missing or anything you would like amending in Leicester City Council’s Elective Home Education Policy?
  • Is there anything you would like the Home Education Service to do to promote good working relationships with home educators and the local authority?

You Said

  • Our policy could reflect more positively the reasons why families choose elective home education
  • Relationships between the local authority and home educators need to be more transparent

We Did

  • We will be reviewing our policy in the light of your comments
  • We will continue to run our termly network meetings to support those home educating families who value this opportunity

We Asked

We asked for comments on our review of city festival funding.

You Said

The review should allocate funding more equally between the festivals and events of all the city’s communities.

We Did

The final budget proposals are now being developed and have been informed by feedback from the consultation. The proposals will be implemented in the coming months.

We Asked

We were considering the possibility of changing the financial assessment for people who live at home (not in a residential care home or nursing home). In particular, we asked for views on proposed changes to the way we work out Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). This is the extra expense people have each week because of a disability.

You Said

Completed questionnaires
A total of 641 questionnaires were completed and returned, which represents a
response rate of over 20%
 
Proposal 1- reduce the standard amount of DRE
Nearly half (48%) of those who responded to this question disagreed with the
proposal. A quarter (25%) agreed with the proposals. A further quarter (26%)
did not have a view. This showed a fairly strong disagreement towards this
proposal.
 
Proposal 2- disallow items which should be provided by the NHS
Marginally more people agreed with the proposal (41%) than disagreed (37%),
with the remaining 22% not having a view. This suggests a fairly even split in
opinion.
 
Proposal 3-  disallow items which are in excess of those deemed
necessary to meet eligible care needs
More people disagreed with this proposal (43%) than agreed to it (32%), with
the remaining 25% not having a view or not answering the question.
 
Impact of a £10 increase to the weekly charge
Half of people (50%) responded that an increase of £10 to their weekly charge
would affect them a lot, including how much they have for essential things. A
further 9% of respondents indicated that they would consider stopping the Adult
Social Care services they receive. 13% would be able to manage the increase,
with 19% being affected a little (including how much they have for ‘extras and treats’). 11% of people did not answer this question.

 

We Did

The Deputy City Mayor, Lead for Adult Social Care has considered the findings of the consultation and decided not to change the current arrangements.
 
The council will therefore continue to allow the following towards disability related costs:
 
A minimum of £20 a week for a single person
A minimum of £15 a week if you are one of a couple
No changes to the list of items which count as disability related expenditure.
 
However, due to central government funding cuts, this may need to be looked at again in the future.
 
Thank you to everyone who gave their views on the consultation.
 

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on the way that we provide neighbourhood services in the north west area of the city. Our proposals included changing the way that we use community buildings to deliver services. The proposals were drawn up following a previous engagement exercise where we asked for more general views on what neighbourhood services might look like in the future.

You Said

That there is good support for some of our proposals, including making improvements to Beaumont Leys Library, keeping New Parks Centre Library and Housing Office, the Tudor Centre and New Parks Youth Centre. That community groups need training, guidance and support so that they understand what is expected of them if they decide to take over the day-to-day running of community buildings. That there are concerns about the proposals for the Stocking Farm Community, Healthy Living and Youth Centre and that alternative suggestions should be investigated. That there are concerns around the consequences for existing groups, if centres change to be managed by outside organisations rather than by the council. That there are concerns around changing the New Parks Customer Services office to an assisted self-service facility. That there are concerns with regard to increased travel distance for some customers where Housing Offices are to relocate.

We Did

The proposals have been updated following consultation. Proposals mean that services provided in the north west area of the city are protected. Several buildings in the area will have a new future providing a wider range of neighbourhood services under one roof. We will provide support sessions for community organisations to advise them on how to develop a business case if they wish to take over the running of an available building. We will review the alternative suggestions made with regard to community buildings at Stocking Farm before making a final decision on the buildings at this site. Plans are being developed for all of the buildings that are no longer required for community use. This means that they will not remain empty, but will either be reused, or they will be demolished so that the land can be used for housing development, or ownership of the building will be transferred to another group or organisation. The council will work with existing groups to ensure that their needs are considered when any changes in the arrangements for the management of buildings are agreed. After these proposals have been considered by the council’s scrutiny committee, an executive decision will be made.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposed 20mph zone for the Merrydale Schools Area.

You Said

We received seven responses to the online consultation. Three were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and three were in favour of the proposed traffic calming.


A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 66 responses to this, representing a 14% response rate. Of these responses, 62 people were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 56 people were in favour with the proposed traffic calming.


A consultation letter was also given to pupils at the two local schools. We had 119 responses to this, representing a 16% response rate. Of these responses, 102 people were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 103 people were in favour with 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 Spring 2017.

We Asked

We asked you about transport improvements to support the Ashton Green development, in particular proposed changes to Greengate Lane, with a scheme to reduce the highway width and signalise the bridge over the Great Central Railway to enable the construction of a new section of cycleway and footpath.

You Said

The majority of respondents stated their outright objection to any form traffic restriction to the GCR bridge on Greengate Lane. A number of possible alternative solutions were raised by local residents. Furthermore, residents highlighted a number of existing concerns over traffic congestion, parking issues and unauthorised HGV access to Greengate Lane.

We Did

The Greengate Lane scheme is a planning requirement of the 2011 (amended in 2014) outline planning permission for Ashton Green and was a specific requirement of Leicestershire County Council as Highway Authority (County Highways). County Highways have been requested to comment on the outcomes from the consultation before any further feasibility work and consideration of alternative options is undertaken.