We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

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 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 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

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 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

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.

We Asked

We asked for views on a revised proposal to relocate services from Armadale Youth Centre into Netherhall Neighbourhood Centre with some redevelopment of the internal space. This would allow for the disposal of Armadale Youth Centre.

 

You Said

At the close of the consultation on 17 May 2016, a total of 131 completed form responses were received. The majority of responders favoured the Netherhall Neighbourhood Centre and the main reasons for this preference were given as:

  • Facilities / services and in particular the use of the Nursery facilities
  • Ease of access and car parking

For the responses received in favour of using the Armadale Youth Centre, the main reasons given were:

  • Facilities / services and in particular the use of dance studio
  • Provides an opportunity to socialise
     

We Did

The results of the consultation were carefully considered and a decision was taken to retain Netherhall Neighbourhood Centre and the ball court and to accommodate some activities which currently take place at Armadale Youth Centre.

We will continue to work with groups from both buildings to find the best location for their needs. We will invest in Netherhall Neighbourhood Centre to ensure it is suitable for the future use.

We Asked

We asked for your views on a proposed 20mph Zone for the Knighton Fields area.

You Said

Consultations were carried out by letter drop to frontage properties and advertising on the city council's website.

Of the 160 responses made, 135 (84%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit, and 102 (64%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming.

We Did

As a result of the support shown for these proposals the city mayor has approved implementation of the scheme which is programmed to be implemented during the summer 2017.

We Asked

We put forward three proposals to seek views on how you would like the youth service to be delivered, and who you would like to deliver it (local government or voluntary sector).
 

You Said

There were 1,044 responses to the consultation proposals, giving a wide range of views. Many respondents provided comments and made further suggestions. A more comprehensive report will be available in due course.

We Did

The findings from the responses received have helped to inform the new delivery model for the youth service which will be implemented from February 2018. Again, further details will be available in due course.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposed revision to the boundary of the Church Gate Conservation area as well as comments on the proposed revised character appraisal and new standalone management plan.

You Said

While there was some feeling that the heritage designation was a hindrance, there was broad support for the conservation area and the continued protection of buildings in the area through the conservation area status. No adverse comments were made regarding the conservation area boundary changes. Support was also expressed for improved cycle infrastructure within the area.

We Did

The boundary of the conservation area was amended in line with the consultation documents. The Character Appraisal and Management Plan were amended in line with comments received and have been adopted. Comments relating to cycle infrastructure have been passed to the relevant team in highways.

We Asked

We sought your views on the changes we were proposing to the home to school transport policy for mainstream pupils.

You Said

A totsal of seven responses were received. Three supported the proposals, three disagreed and one response expressed no preference but supplied comments.

We Did

As only a very small number of people objected to the proposed changes, we decided to implement them with immediate effect. The revised policy has therefore been adopted and published on our website.

We Asked

We asked for your views on a proposed 20mph zone for the Downing Drive Area.

 

You Said

Consultations were carried out by a letter drop to local residents and advertising on the Leicester City Council website.

Of the 302 responses received, 220 (73%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph speed limit, and 158 (52%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming.

 

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 2018.

 

We Asked

We asked for your comments and level of support for our proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for the continuation of street drinking. This will give police additional powers to enforce restrictions, (and in some cases make arrests) where people are displaying anti-social behaviour while drinking.

You Said

Of the 810 respondents;
a)    86.17% think street drinking continues to be an issue in Leicester
b)    48.52% had a problem with street drinkers
c)    36.91% stated that there was a problem with groups of street drinkers
d)    26.42% experienced problems with street drinking every day
e)    25.19% think current order has helped in dealing with street drinking
f)    89.51% support the continuation of a citywide street drinking order

Specific problems experienced by respondents were:
•    36.67% littering
•    35.06% intimidation
•    39.51% noise
•    35.43% verbal abuse
•    15.19% physical abuse
 

We Did

We are considering the continuation of the street drinking order in light of the fact that 89.51% of the respondents have stated their support.

We Asked

We asked about use of the Town Hall Bike Park, about opening times, charging and customer service. This was to help inform our decisions about how public cycle parking should be provided in future.

You Said

Of the 183 responses:


  1. 58% use the Bike Park on a regular or occasional basis

  2. 27% would use the Bike Park if it were open 2 4/7

  3. 78% were happy to use a key, fob or smart card entry system.
  4. 96% were buying one hour or one day tickets rather than multi use tickets

  5. 74% were willing to pay an annual membership fee of £10 rather than pay for each use.

  6. 59% used the toilet and changing facilities

  7. 63% used the bike repair service offered
  8. 89% of respondents rated the customer service a score of 5 or more out of 10.


 

We Did

  • Extended the contract with Future Cycles to operate the Town Hall Bike Park until March 2018

  • Ongoing review of the cycle parking facilities and public cycle hire in the city centre

  • Investigate the use of OneCard as an access key to secure cycle parking hubs in the city centre to allow 24 hour access.


We Asked

We asked for peoples’ views on how neighbourhood services in the East and Central areas 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 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 ran this consultation for 13 weeks (from 18 Nov 2016 to 10 Feb 2017) to solicit a range of views about services commissioned by the council over the past three years to help groups and organisations in Leicester’s voluntary and community sector (VCS).

Specifically, we wanted to find out:

  • how many VCS groups and organisations have accessed these services
  • how often VCS groups and organisations have accessed these services
  • how useful VCS groups and organisations have found these services
  • what outcomes, if any, have been achieved as a result of the support

what future support respondents believe the council can give the city’s VCS.

Our intention was to develop a better understanding of the support services considered most valuable within the sector and which the council should consider retaining in some meaningful form within any future arrangements.

You Said

The total number of respondents to the online survey was 134. Of this number, respondents identified themselves as belonging to the following categories:

  • 51 (38%) on behalf of a local VCS group or organisation
  • 29 (22%) as someone who uses services provided by a VCS group or organisation
  • 54 (40%) as a member of public with an interest in how the city council supports the VCS in Leicester.

We know that there are a large number of VCS groups and organisations in the city, that between them they employ a large number of people, and that they provide services to a high number of users.

It is therefore noteworthy that even though the consultation has been actively promoted in a number of ways the actual response levels were disappointingly low.

We Did

Results of the consultation were factored into the procurement of a new, streamlined service providing infrastructure support that was the subject of a procurement exercise in August and September 2017, leading to the award of a two-year contract (with possibility of a 12-month extension) to Voluntary Action LeicesterShire.

We Asked

The Penalty Points Scheme was introduced in December 2015, with a commitment to review the operation of the scheme after 12 months.

A further consultation took place in December 2016 / January 2017. The consultation covered the penalty points scheme and the code of conduct.

You Said

Responses from the public indicate continued concern about driver behaviour. Of 45 responses from members of the public, 31 directly concerned the manner of driving and 5 referred to the overall fitness of drivers for licensing.

There were 12 responses from the trade. They raised issues about stopping places, the use of bus lanes and the behaviour of both drivers and passengers, but no comments on the existing penalty points scheme or any alternatives.

A majority of the public supported a penalty points scheme.  The majority of taxi drivers did not think it was a good idea.

We Did

The City Mayor has considered the report and whether the Penalty Points Scheme is meeting its objectives, and whether he is content for the scheme to become a permanent feature in the regulation of the taxi trade in Leicester. He is of the opinion that the Penalty Points Scheme should be retained and further developed to allow Leicester City Council to apply regulatory and enforcement measures in a proportionate way reflecting the risk and harm caused by the misconduct and other contraventions. 

1. The Penalty Points Scheme has been made a permanent arrangement for the Council’s management of standards and conduct within the licenced taxi sector alongside the Code of Conduct.

2. The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services has the authority to make, after consultation with the relevant Assistant Mayor and, as may be required by the Council Constitution,  any other relevant Council committee, such alterations to the Scheme as are likely to facilitate improvement in driver conduct, reduce contraventions and/or improvements in its management and administration. 

  

We Asked

We asked for your comments to review the council’s housing register and the proposed changes to the council’s housing allocations policy.

You Said

Overall the range of responses was between 51% - 70% stating that the changes would have either a positive effect or no effect upon them, compared with 4% - 34% of the respondents who stated the proposals would have a negative effect on them.

We Did

Following the consultation, council’s executive approved the changes proposed to the housing allocations policy.  This is now in the process of being implemented.

We Asked

We consulted the public to seek their views and opinions concerning proposed changes to current third sector mental health support services. We proposed locality based services providing information, navigation and community based recovery support services.

You Said

45 per cent of respondents indicated that this is the right model for the future, and 76 per cent thought the right service elements were included. Some concerns were expressed about the number of proposed locality services, funding available for these services, and how difficult it might be for people to access them.

We Did

Following the consultation, the commissioners have reviewed their proposals and the funding available, and we are planning to change the name and the number of localities before seeking approval to go ahead with the new model. 

We Asked

We sought views on how people might be affected by 25 proposals concerning the way we run children, young people and family centres; and other early help services.

For 15 of the 25 proposals, which present a key change to current early help services, we asked people to tell us how it would affect them and provided a tick box option for them to do this, (e.g. it will affect us negatively/positively/not at all).

We also provided people with a free text box to tell us in what way the proposed change would affect them and provided a further text box for any other comments.

For 10 of the 25 proposal, where no change was proposed, we provided a text box for comments only.

You Said

1,224 people responded to the consultation. Analysis of what people said is outlined in the consultation report. We also produced a downloadable information leaflet to summarise details of the public consultation and what we did as a result, (copies available on this site and also in the children, young people and families centres).
 
The key highlights of what people said are as follows:   

  • For 5 of the 15 proposals, a majority of both the public and stakeholders were in agreement that the proposals would have a negative effect
  • For one of the 15 proposals, considered by stakeholders only, a majority of stakeholders were in agreement that the proposal would have a negative effect
  • For 8 of the 15 proposals, members of the public said the proposals ‘would not affect me/us’ but stakeholders responded to say the proposal would affect ‘me/my clients’
  • For one proposal, both the public and stakeholders said the proposal ‘would not affect me/us/my clients’.

In relation to how people responded to the free text boxes, we identified four high level types of responses:
1.    comments about the service, proposals and consultation
2.    suggested potential impacts (of the proposals)
3.    suggestions concerning the service and proposal
4.    questions.
 
The analysis of people’s responses to the free text boxes is too detailed to be summarised here, but a full analysis is provided in the consultation report.

We Did

We looked at responses from service users, service providers, staff and members of the public, and revised 12 of the initial 25 proposals that featured in the public consultation before making a decision on implementing the changes.

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.

Police already have powers of arrest for criminal offences that can be linked to drugs or substances abuse. However, where a PSPO is in operation it is an offence to refuse to comply with an officer’s request to stop the activity or to surrender any substances when asked. Where there is no PSPO in operation, it is not an offence alone to refuse to surrender the substance, although any related anti-social behaviour is.

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

As a result of the support from public consultation for the proposal, the council’s executive approved implementation from Summer 2017 of a citywide Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for New Psychoactive Substances combined with a citywide PSPO for street drinking.

The PSPO will give police additional powers to be able to make arrests if offenders breach the PSPO by, for example, not complying with an officer’s request to stop the activity or surrender any substances when asked, or failing to give their name and address.

The New Psychoactive Substances and Street Drinking PSPO will be reviewed in 3 years.

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 have asked for your views in relation to the development of the Leicester city economic action plan 2016-2020.

You Said

We received ten online and five direct responses. The online responses said they thought the plan was ambitious and recognised the work already achieved.

Areas that could be enhanced include graduate retention, train connectivity, high speed internet accessibility and business growth.

We Did

These areas were taken onboard and the final document has been produced and is available for download.