We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We Asked

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

You Said

Consultations were carried out by a letter drop to local residents and advertising on the Leicester City Council consultation website. Of the 23 responses received, 22 (96%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph speed limit.

We Did

As a result of the support shown for the proposals, the City Mayor has approved implementation of the scheme which is programmed to be implemented during the spring 2019.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed introduction of a 20mph zone and other traffic calming measures in the Davenport Road area

You Said

11 responses were received to the online consultation
10 were within the consultation delivery area
1 was location unknown
 
We also issued a paper quastionnaire to residents in the area covered by the 20mph zone
 
676 letters were delivered. 250 people replied (including 10 online) which was a 37% response rate
212 (85%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph zone, 35 (14%) against and 3 (1%) were unsure
179 (72%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming, 59 (24%) against and 12 (5%) 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 early 2019.

We Asked

We asked how the proposed Putney Road scheme will affect the way you travel, as well as whether there were any other concerns with the scheme.

You Said

In total, 291 responses were received. 60.1% of these were opposed to the scheme, while 25.4% were positive. The remaining 14.4% of the responses were neutral or balanced.
The main points raised were the concern that the scheme will increase traffic in the surrounding areas, in particular Victoria Park Road and the Clarendon Park area, and that this will negatively affect air quality.
A further concern was that the scheme only caters to car users and does not do enough for sustainable modes of transport.

We Did

Monitoring the impacts of large highway schemes is undertaken by the city council on many large highway schemes. Due to concerns raised in the public consultation, we will monitor traffic flows in and around the Clarendon Park area and air quality in several locations.
Design changes have been made to the scheme to improve it for walkers and cyclists. The council is taking a balanced approach to improving transport in the city – there is a second NPIF funded project which will improve public transport.

We Asked

We asked for views on the draft Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Carers Strategy 2018-2021, which seeks to improve services and support for unpaid carers through the work that is undertaken by the NHS, social care and voluntary sector organisations across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

You Said

  • 62 people from Leicester responded to the online consultation, representing 27% of all respondents across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
  • 56% of the respondents from Leicester did not feel that the carers strategy reflected carer issues. The largest proportion of this cohort of carers were young carers.  
  • 53% of the respondents from Leicester tended to disagree that the strategy's priorities were the right ones. 
  • Only 27% of the respondents from Leicester agreed with the actions proposed to deliver on the priorities within the strategy.

We Did

The consultation feedback was presented to the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission on 28 August 2018. As a result of the number of young carers who felt their needs weren’t reflected, the decision was made for Leicester City Council not to sign up to the joint strategy until the young carer issues were addressed. This work was completed and resulted in the young carer section of the strategy being rewritten and the City Mayor approved the revised LLR Joint Carers Strategy on 11 October 2018.

We Asked

We asked for your views on proposed traffic calming measures in the Eyres Monsell area.

4,300 consultation packs were delivered to households in the area and 625 responses were received (including 44 online). This represents a 15% response rate.

You Said

72% of respondents were supportive of the introduction of a 20mph zone, while 25% were against.

60% or respondents voted for the traffic calming on Glenhills Boulevard, with 32% against.
 

We Did

These results will be reported to the City Mayor along with a summary of comments made as part of the consultation.

We Asked

We asked for views on proposed changes to the admissions arrangements for entry into community and controlled schools from August 2019. The proposed changes are shown below:

  • To give priority to previously looked after children from outside England
  • To increase the sibling priority to include siblings in attendance in Year 11
  • To remove the domestic violence criteria and replace with a social and medical criterion
  • To add a new oversubscription criterion that gives priority for children of staff
  • To amend the admission arrangements relating to Fosse Primary School and Slater Primary School

The consultation was brought to the attention of:

  • Neighbouring local authorities
  • The admission forum
  • Parents of children in all Leicester city schools
  • The Nottingham Diocese / Diocese of Leicester
  • Parents with children in Early Year settings
  • General public through information on website / advert in Leicester Mercury.

You Said

A total of 31 responses were received with the majority of responses in favour of the proposed changes. The only mixed responses received were in respect of proposed change 4 (To add a new oversubscription criterion that gives priority for children of staff). Although the  majority of responses received were supportive of the proposed change, there were two negative responses and these are shown below.
 

  • As it will be low priority it would not provide space for many applicants in any case. Why should place of work be a priority over other working places (childcare issues are the main reasons for appeals).
  • This can look like an abuse of position although it does make sense if it sits in the position suggested. Details of how many places were awarded and under what criterion every year would help with transparency.

We Did

The Assistant City Mayor for Children and Young Peoples Services considered the responses and has made a decision to implement the new admission arrangements for entry from August 2019.  The full set of arrangements have been published online.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposal to bring together Fosse Primary School and Slater Primary School, to form a larger five form entry Fosse Primary School and formally close Slater Primary School.

You Said

A total of 39 respondents submitted comments.  

When asked the question do you agree with the proposal to bring the two schools together to form a larger five form entry Fosse Primary School, 20 respondents said yes, and 19 said no.

Positive comments in relation to the proposal included:

  • New facility for the community
  • Good sports, PE and greenery
  • Opportunities for staff development
  • Current schools too small
  • Great idea to bring together
  • Aggregate resources

Some of the main comments given for not supporting the proposals included:

  • Too big
  • Wrong lead school
  • Traffic and other health and safety concerns
  • Job security
  • Early years to key stage 1 transition concerns with the split site
  • Ecology concerns

Half of the 'No' responses from members of the public related to traffic and ecology concerns, rather than the educational statutory proposal, which this consultation relates to. The new building has planning approval, traffic and ecology issues are being addressed as part of the construction project.

We Did

The Deputy City Mayor for Children and Young Peoples Services considered the responses and has made a decision to continue to the next stage of the proposals - publication of a statutory notice followed by a four week period for statutory representations.

The statutory notice will be published on Monday 9 April (closes Sunday 6 May). At the end of which a further decision will need to be taken by the Executive as to whether to implement the proposals or not.

If implemented they will be effective from 31 August and 1 September 2019.

We Asked

The consultation asked whether:

  • The purpose of the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment (PNA) is explained sufficiently
  • An accurate account of community pharmacy services is described
  • Residents’ needs are accurately reflected
  • People were aware of any pharmaceutical services that were available but not reflected in the PNA
  • Any issues or gaps in provision are missing in the PNA
  • Any additional information should be included
  • Anything your organisation could do to take these recommendations forward

You Said

There were a total of 13 responses

  • 77% (10 respondents) agreed / strongly agreed that the PNA had been explained sufficiently, 23% (3) had no opinion either way
  • 77% agreed /strongly agreed that the PNA provided an accurate account of community pharmacy services currently available in Leicester, 23% had no opinion either way
  • 77% agreed / strongly agreed that the PNA accurately reflected residents needs in Leicester, 23% had no opinion either way
  • 85% (11) reported there were no pharmaceutical services available but not highlighted. One respondent thought there should be more in here about supporting patients recently discharged from secondary care including ensuring that any changes in medication have been successfully communicated to primary care
  • 54% (7) reported there were no issues or gaps in provision, 31% (4) were not sure and 15% (2) respondents reported gaps in provision relating to blood pressure checks, diabetic blood checks and INR testing
  • No respondents thought any additional information should be included in the PNA
  • Four (31%) responded to how recommendations could be taken forward, including staff team meetings to engage with patients to increase uptake of our services, opening a pharmacy in areas of need and one request for more support in this area.
  • Two respondents (15%) made final comments relating to signposting to services not covered in the PNA and to pharmacy applications for existing services.

We Did

It is recommended that the council works with NHS England and Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group where appropriate to:
Address any equity issues through:

  • Review of locations and opening times of pharmacies
  • Review cross-city and county border service provision
  • Encouraging discretionary service in relation to local need

Promotion of health and healthcare management through:

  • Encouraging implementation of healthy living pharmacies
  • Ensuring healthy lifestyle campaigns are carried out
  • Considering inclusion or developing role of pharmacies in commissioning strategies
  • Assessing uptake of advanced and community services to share best practice of high performers
  • Review monitoring and quality visits to pharmacies to promote service improvement

 

We Asked

As a local authority, we are required to establish a Local Plan that sets out how the council responds to local priorities and how it meets the social, economic and environmental challenges and opportunities that face the city.

This consultation provided an opportunity for residents and businesses to express their views on this process.

You Said

We have had approximately 1,300 comments on the plan. A total of 348 written responses were received from MPs, councillors, adjoining councils, government departments, members of the public, organisations, businesses and community groups.

We Did

Further details on how we will respond to the comments will be provided at the next stage of the plan making process.

We Asked

We sought views on how people use open spaces, and sporting and recreational facilities across the city.

You Said

A total of 97 responses were received from members of the public which took place alongside the main Local Plan consultation.

We Did

We acknowledged all responses in January outlining the next steps in the Local Plan process.

Further details on how we will respond to the comments will be provided at the next stage of the plan making process.

We Asked

We asked for views on a new homelessness strategy and related proposals. We wanted to find out whether there was agreement for the key aims of the strategy and actions proposed, and whether the related nine proposals were supported.
 

You Said

74 responses to the consultation questionnaire were received as well as other feedback from the Homelessness Reference Group (a forum of statutory and voluntary sector organisations that are involved with homelessness services) and Action Homeless’s Client Conference.

There was agreement with the strategy’s key aim. However there some concerns about how these would be delivered. The proposals made were also broadly supported, again the feedback received mainly related to how these the might be implemented.
 

We Did

The consultation feedback was presented to Housing Scrutiny Commission on 15 January 2018. We will consider the feedback in detail before publishing the new homelessness strategy for Leicester.

We Asked

The consultation was held to inform people of the proposed London Road highway improvement scheme between Granby Street and Victoria Park Road. We also asked for people’s opinions, comments and suggestions about the proposals.

You Said

A total of 113 people attended the staffed public exhibition, held over three days, and 147 people submitted comments by email.

A lot of positive comments for the scheme were received as people recognised the need for improving the safety of cyclists and other users travelling on London Road.

64% of the responses were supportive of the scheme, while 8% stated that they did not support the scheme. The remaining 26% of respondents did not specify whether or not they supported the scheme.

While people were generally supportive of the scheme there were concerns raised about aspects of the design which are addressed in the attached report.

We Did

The comments received will help to inform the detailed design and (as and when construction takes place) will assist the contractor with how best to manage the works in liaison with local residents, businesses and general public who use the area.

We Asked

We asked for your views on what more could be done by way of support to those that beg on our streets and the potential for Leicester City Council to introduce a citywide Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to provide the police with additional enforcement powers to tackle the anti-social behaviour associated with street begging.

You Said

  • 774 responses were received in total
  • 85% of respondents consider that street begging is an issue in Leicester, with 79% of respondents stating that they see begging on a daily basis
  • 66% supported enforcement measures and 32% either did not support or were not sure
  • 84% of respondents were members of the public and 4% from specialist support services / voluntary sector / health or social care providers
  • 89% of respondents work in or visit the city centre regularly or live in the city centre
  • The type of issues associated with begging that respondents have identified as affecting them include intimidation, littering, noise, verbal abuse and public urination
  • There was strong support for increasing public awareness of the support that is currently available to street beggars. 77% agreed that this would be beneficial 
  • A significant number of respondents were commenting on homelessness / rough sleeping rather than begging.

We Did

In December 2017, the Home Office updated its guidance on Public Space Protection Orders. This has provided a greater focus on the impact of anti-social behaviour on victims and on their needs, ensuring that the relevant legal tests are met before the powers are used, underlining the importance of ensuring that the use of the powers are focused on specific behaviour that is anti-social or causing nuisance, and ensuring that the issues of local consultation, accountability and transparency are addressed.

The new guidance now specifically states that PSPOs ‘should not be used to target people based solely on the fact that someone is homeless or rough sleeping, as this in itself is unlikely to mean that such behaviour is having an unreasonably detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life which justifies the restrictions imposed’.

It advises that councils should consider whether the use of PSPOs is the appropriate response to dealing with complaints about homeless people and that any Order ‘defines precisely the specific activity or behaviour that is having the detrimental impact on the community’. Importantly, councils are now directed to consider taking measures that tackle the root causes of the behaviour and consulting with homeless charities when considering restrictions or requirements that may impact on rough sleepers.

Taking into consideration feedback from the consultation and the updated Home Office guidance on PSPOs to tackle begging and rough sleeping, an alternative approach has been taken to implementing a PSPO.

Instead, a person centred partnership approach has been embedded that focuses on individual support needs and addressing the need for suitable interventions. This can include progressing appropriate enforcement measures.

We have taken on board the strong feedback regarding increasing public awareness of the support that is available to street beggars but that any campaign must not demonise beggars / rough sleepers.

It was clear from some comments provided in the consultation that there is a lack of knowledge regarding the provision that is available. This has highlighted how important it is to progress a long term communications programme to improve public awareness of support services.

Reflecting on feedback from the consultation, in addition to good practice from other cities in the UK, we have embedded a three stage partnership approach to begging:

  • Intervention – continuing to provide support and assistance for those involved in begging to address housing, alcohol and drug addiction, mental and physical health etc
  • Enforcement – regular enforcement campaigns to tackle individuals involved in street begging
  • Positive communication – embed a long term communications plan to raise awareness of the services available and to deter the public from giving directly to beggars.

We Asked

Contracts for sexual health services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland end on 31 December 2018. To see what new services should offer we carried out a consultation asking the people who use the services about their feelings towards a number of possible changes to the service.

  • 177 questionnaires were completed from people from Leicester.
  • 23% of the questionnaires were from people under 25.
  • Issues for those under 25 were a little different from everyone else, with young people liking online services more than a phone service.
  • The people who filled in the questionnaire were not as diverse as the population of Leicester, and so the questionnaire was reopened to get more responses from people from BME backgrounds.

You Said

Generally people liked the idea of an online appointment booking service, having a mix of pre-booked appointments and a ‘turn up and wait’ service, being able to access advice services online and by phone, being able to order self-test kits for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) online, and being able to use self-service machines to get sexual health products such as condoms.

People from Leicester had three main questions/issues were about the services.

  1. People wanted to know they would have enough information about how to use the STI self-testing kits and also wanted a way to make sure the tests are trustworthy.
  2. People wanted to make sure the self-service machines would be in discreet spaces.
  3. People wanted to know that the self-testing kits and self-service machines would only be used by the right people, and not people who are vulnerable or young.

We Did

  1. We will create video instructions on how to use tests. The videos will be on the sexual health services website and on the self-service machines. The STI testing kits will all be up to national quality standards showing they are trustworthy.
  2. The location of self-service machines will be thought about carefully, and will be chosen to make sure they are in discreet areas. This will include in the reception area of the new service.
  3. Before getting self-testing kits, people will need to fill in a questionnaire online with information including their name and date of birth. After doing this, users will be directed to the most appropriate service. Young or vulnerable people would be directed to appointments with a member of staff.

We Asked

The council currently funds social welfare advice through five external voluntary and community sector (VCS) contracts and also through the internal welfare rights service. As these VCS contracts are due to end at the end of March 2018, we asked local people for their views on how social welfare advice could be delivered in the future.

The main proposals:
•    Advice provided through a partnership, with one organisation taking the lead
•    Locating the city-based advice provision in the customer service centre (CSC)
•    Basing the outreach advice service in the eight council centres / hubs and
•    Encouraging people to help themselves, if they are able to do so.

The consultation also asked for information relating to the following:
•    Gaps in the current advice provision
•    The potential impact on advice clients
•    Suggestions for improving the proposals
•    Advice categories currently used or may be used in the future and
•    Key elements of a good advice service.

 

You Said

There were 649 responses to the consultation, comprising of 273 (42%) online and 376 (58%) paper responses. A copy of the evaluation report of the consultation is available at the bottom of this page.

Evaluation of the consultation showed that more people did not support proposals 1 (69.49%) and 2 (57.01%) and slightly more supported proposal 3 (48.84%) and 4 (46.84%).
 

Summary of consultation responses
1.    Partnership with a lead provider:

  • Yes = 188 (28.97%)
  • No = 451 (69.49%)

2.    Lead provider located in CSC:

  • Yes = 232 (35.75%)
  • No = 370 (57.01%)

3.    Outreach using the eight Hubs:

  • Yes = 317 (48.84%)
  • No = 279 (42.99%)


4.    Helping people to help themselves:

  • Yes = 304 (46.84%)
  • No = 289 (44.53%)

 

We Did

We have changed our model from a partnership, with a lead provider, to procuring specialist advice contracts and retaining an in-house specialist welfare benefits provision.

1) Advice gateway, assessment, generalist advice, information and guidance  
2) Specialist debt advice
3) Specialist housing advice
4) Specialist employment advice
In-house) Specialist welfare benefits advice

We will be providing an additional outreach advice provision in the Highfields area.

The advice provision will be located on the first floor, in the customer service centre on Granby Street.
 

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on proposals to withdraw from Southfields Drive Sports Hall.
We also asked user groups how their activities would be affected by the proposals, and how we could assist users to relocate to other facilities suitable for their needs.
 

You Said

The groups and activities accessed were very important to them

  • Some groups did not want to relocate but could find alternative venues if necessary
  • Some groups would need support from the council to relocate their activities
  • Some groups said they would not like to see the building close but that the priority is to be able to continue their activities
     

We Did

  • We will use the feedback from the consultation to make a decision on the Sports Hall building and the activities which take place there
  • We have worked with existing user groups to identify other suitable facilities for their needs
  • We will explore a range of options for the disposal of the building in the context of the wider site

We Asked

The consultation ran from 1 August to 8 September 2017 to gather views on the following aspects of service delivery:

  1. To jointly commissioning services for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
  2. To continue to use the majority of the funding for Healthwatch but to also retain some of the funding to undertake specific investigations or focused additional consultations with service users
  3. To ask any new provider to include a focus on volunteering in supporting the delivery of Healthwatch
  4. To ensure that engagement is a key aspect of the new service particularly focusing on seldom-heard groups.

You Said

A total of 390 online responses were received across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, with 277 (71%) of these relating specifically to Rutland.

The results of the response to the first proposal have been separated out as the response rate from Rutland suggests the majority didn’t agree with proposal one to jointly commission services for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. 


However, this proposal was supported by the residents of Leicester and Leicestershire to jointly commission a Healthwatch services across LLR (table 1).

In comparison the proposal was rejected by the residents of Rutland as can be seen in the table 2 below.

Agree

Don’t Agree

Don’t Know

Didn’t Answer

Leicester

31

11

2

0

Leicestershire

15

4

1

0

All

23

16

6

1

Not Answered

1

0

1

1

Total

70

(61%)

31

(27%)

10

(9%)

2

(3%)

                                                                                                                                                                           

 

 

Agree

Don’t Agree

Don’t Know

Didn’t Answer

Rutland

70

181

22

4

Total

70

(26%)

181

(65%)

22

(8%)

4

(1%)

The other aspects of the consultation (outlined below) were more broadly supported by all respondents as follows:

  • to use the majority of the funding for Healthwatch but to also retain some of the funding to undertake specific investigations or focused additional consultations with service users
  • ask any new provider to include a focus on volunteering in supporting the delivery of Healthwatch
  • ensure that engagement is a key aspect of the new service particularly focusing on seldom-heard groups

We Did

As a result of the consultation and the response from all parties it has been agreed that:

  • Leicester City and Leicestershire County Council will jointly procure a Leicester and Leicestershire Healthwatch service
  • Rutland County Council will procure a Rutland only Healthwatch service

We Asked

We consulted over a proposal to set up an Adult Social Care Prevention & Wellbeing Grant Fund. The consultation consisted of a survey, discussions with some current providers of services commissioned from the voluntary and community sector, and a workshop held on 18th July 2017.

You Said

There were 113 responses to the survey. From these responses, from discussions with providers, and from the outcomes of the workshop, it was apparent that there was no overwhelming support for the proposals.

The main finding from survey was that whilst there was some support for the grant scheme, respondents were concerned about the lack of the sustainability of projects funded through short term grants. They were also concerned about the requirement for constant innovation, and that the maximum funding amount proposed (£10,000 per project, per year), would not be sufficient to deliver effective interventions for people at risk of developing social care needs.

We Did

In the light of these responses, and after careful consideration, the council has decided not to go forward with the proposed fund. The full consultation report can be downloaded below.

We Asked

We proposed a 20mph zone within the Evington village area.

You Said

28 responses were received to the online consultation.  
19 were within the consultation delivery area. 14 of these were included in the consultation figures after duplicates were disregarded.
Nine were from outside the consultation delivery area.
 
We also carried out a paper consultation to residents in the area.
873 letters were delivered. 282 replied (including 14 via the online consultation) which was a 32% response rate. (some replied by letter and online consultation, and only the letter was counted. Some replied by online consultation more than once. Only once was counted).
238 (84%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph zone, 40 (14%) against and 4 (2%) were unsure.
174 (62%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming, 98 (35%) against and 9 (3%) were unsure.
 
Of the 9 online consultation replies outside the area, 6 (67%) were in favour and 3 (33%) against the proposed 20mph zone. 4 (44%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming in the area and 5 (56%) were against.
 

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 during February  2018.

We Asked

Should we simplify the current 38 smoke control orders into a single smoke control order?

You Said

A total of 34 people responded, with 79% of respondents (27 people) agreeing that we should simplify the current 38 smoke control orders into one smoke control order for the whole city.

We Did

We re-declared the whole city as a single smoke area on 1 June 2018.

We Asked

We put forward a range of proposals for changes to a number of services commissioned from the voluntary and community sector.

You Said

There were 356 responses to the survey giving a wide range of views. Many respondents provided comments and/or alternative proposals.

We Did

Some providers said they would like more information about the proposals, and more time in order to respond to the consultation. We are analysing the consultation feedback and considering the next steps for the review in the light of the feedback. We will provide further information about the next steps in the review as soon as possible.

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on the way that we provide neighbourhood services in the east and central areas 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 Highfields Library, St Matthews Centre and St Barnabas Library; keeping Coleman Neighbourhood Centre and the African Caribbean Centre, and developing community access to Evington and Knighton libraries. 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 and after careful consideration an executive decision was made. Several buildings in the area will have a new future providing a wider range of neighbourhood services under one roof. We will be reviewing the options on the disposal of some buildings and 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.

We Asked

We proposed the adoption of a new local validation list containing information requirements to provide comprehensive guidance to those submitting planning applications to the city council.
 

You Said

Ten responses were received to the online consultation: five of these were anonymous, one from a statutory planning consultee, one from a neighbourhood forum, and three from other city council departments who provide advice to the planning department on the determination of planning applications.

The responses provided some clarifications to the proposed requirements and a number of additional requirements for completeness.

We Did

The proposed additions and amendments to the consultation draft list have been incorporated where appropriate with a view to adopt in early 2018, following a notification exercise to planning agents of the change.

We Asked

We asked 473 residents if  they would like traffic calming in Stoughton Drive North to slow down vehicle speeds.

You Said

63 people responded, with 44 supporting the proposals with some objections.
 

We Did

We have taken account of the objections and revised the scheme. We are now preparing detailed proposals for approval.

We Asked

The consultation was held to inform people of the Leicester North West Phase 2 scheme proposal at the five-ways junction, Blackbird Road / Anstey Lane junction, Ravensbridge Drive/A6 junction and on Abbey Gate. We also asked for people’s opinions, comments and suggestions about the proposals.

You Said

A total of 82 people attended the staffed public exhibition, held over four days, and 74 people responded to the online consultation. Four emails with comments were also received.

Although there were some concerns noted (as detailed in the consultation report), these tended to be reflective of individuals' needs rather than affecting the wider area. A lot of positive comments for the scheme were received as people recognised the need for something to be done in the area.

We Did

The comments received will help to inform the detailed design and (as and when construction takes place) will assist the contractor with how best to manage the works in liaison with local residents, businesses and general public who use the area.