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 views on various school term date options covering 2022/23 up to 2026/27.

You said

A total of 5,514 responses were received to the online consultation.

3,628 respondents (65.8%) chose Option A to keep the existing pattern of term dates, which matches the Leicestershire County Council dates.

1,143 chose Option B and 625 chose Option C. 

We did

As a result of the support of the proposal, the Deputy City Mayor for Education and Housing has approved the implementation of the dates set out in Option A. These can be viewed on the Leicester City Council website.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposed Egerton Avenue area 20mph speed limit.

You said

Three valid responses were received to the online consultation, each of which were within the consultation delivery area.

We also carried out a paper consultation to residents in the area covered by the 20mph speed limit - 291 letters were delivered.

In toal, 84 people replied (29% response rate).

75 (89%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph speed limit, 8 (10%) against and 1 (1%) made no selection.

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 in Spring 2021.

We asked

We asked for your views on our draft  ‘Social Care and Education Participation Approach’ which outlines the department’s commitment to creating opportunities for children and young people to share their views on matters affecting them and details how this should be approach.

The approach is framed on the Lundy Model to ensure that children and young people recognise their rights and that their voices are heard.

You said

A total of 62 surveys were completed and returned: 69% respondents identified as professionals, 24% identified as young people and 7% as other. 


15 young people completed the online survey. Of those, just over half suggested they had participated in decision making before and all but one of the young people felt that opportunities to participate are important. All the young people who responded felt the approach would provide more participation opportunities.

Young people reported that the approach document seemed effective and versatile and commented on the clear layout and colourful readability of the document. They also noted that the approach is inspiring and that it would encourage young people to make decisions. 
 
Three professionals who do not work with children and 40 professionals who do work with children completed the survey. All who answered felt that the approach makes sense and is clear and the majority (95%) thought that the approach helped them to understand what a good participation opportunity looks like. Professionals noted that the approach is young person centred and has clear and concise language.

People also appreciated the use of symbols throughout the document. The feedback received indicated that it was useful to have a framework and to look at different levels of participation.
 
91% of professionals agreed that they could apply the Lundy model to their work with young people and over three quarters suggested they would use the template provided. Those who didn’t indicated this is due to the amount of time required to fill it in, the fact that they already use other forms or that their role wouldn’t necessitate it.

100% of the professionals recognised that opportunities to participate are important and they also all noted that they understood their duty to support participation under Article 12.
 
Just 7% of respondents self-identified as neither a young person nor a professional. This included one person who is a member of the public, one person who is a care leaver and another who is an admin worker working in children’s centres. They commented that the approach is interesting and but identified some concerns that there is not enough money or staff capacity to support the true participation. One person suggested that consideration needed to be given to how to engage with young people in ethnic minority communities. 

We did

We amended the approach document to include direct quotes from people who responded to the consultation and introduced it as our formal approach. Training is supporting the roll out of the approach to staff.

We asked

We sought residents’ views on the proposed 20mph zone.

You said

Residents of 1,226 properties in the area were consulted. 265 (22%) responded and of these 236 (89%) are in favour of the proposed 20mph speed limit.

We did

As a result of the support of the proposal, the City Mayor has approved the implementation of the scheme.

We asked

Shoudl we apply a 20mph speed limit in the area?

You said

12 valid responses were received to the online consultation (plus two duplicates):

  • 10 were within the consultation delivery area
  • Two were in Leicester city

We also carried out a paper consultation to residents in the area covered by the 20mph speed limit:

612 letters were delivered. 123 replied including 10 by online consultation which was a 20% response rate.

112 (88%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph speed limit, 14 (11%) against and 1 (1%) were unsure (including online consultation outside the area).

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 in spring 2020.

We asked

Should we inroduce traffic calming measures in the area?

You said

Seven responses were received to the online consultation:

  • Five were within the consultation delivery area
  • Two were in Leicester city

We also carried out a paper consultation to residents in the area:

88 letters were delivered. 39 replied including five by online consultation which was a 44% response rate

31 (77%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming, 8 (18%) against and 2 (5%) were unsure (including the two responses outside the area).

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 be installed in the spring 2020.

We asked

We asked your views on our draft placement sufficiency and its aims and priorities.

You said

In total, 66 surveys were completed and returned. The majority of responses were received by staff (41%) or foster carers at Leicester city (30%). Comments were also received from providers in the city and a single foster carer from an Independent Fostering Agency (IFA). Notably, 8% of our responses were from children currently or previously in care.

  • 88% of all respondents supporting the aims and ambitions identified in the strategy.
  • 46% of respondents said we currently have the right mix of homes for our young people, 27% said they didn’t know or wasn’t sure and 23% didn’t respond.
  • 77% of respondents said they were aware of the demands and challenged placed on the local authority in finding suitable homes.
  • Collectively 74% agreed with our priorities and actions for the next 3 years for each area of work: foster care, residential care, support living and commissioning, 6% disagreed and 20% were unsure or didn’t respond.
  • A range of comments were received which: evidenced the need for improvement, informed action planning and delivery and provided examples for working more collaboratively in the future.

We did

We published our final strategy and delivery plan are available online.

This final version incorporates the views of children in care, care experienced young people, staff, foster carers and local providers.

Our plans will now be delivered by relevant services and overseen by the governance structure set out in our strategy. More detailed plans, which include many of the recommendations and comments put forward in this consultation, have been given to relevant departments to continue to improve services going forward.

We asked

We asked "Should we apply a 20 mph speed limit in the area and install traffic calming features"

You said

250 responses were received by post from the Letchworth Road North area. Of these 80% were in favour of the speed limit reduction and 61% in favour of the traffic calming features.

 

230 responses were received by post from the Dovelands area. Of these 86% were in favour of the speed limit reduction and 63% in favour of the traffic calming features.

75 responses were received electronically on the council’s consultation website. Of these 81% expressed support for the proposals in both areas.

843 letters were sent to residents in the Letchworth Road north area giving a response rate of 29%. 741 letters were sent out to residents in the Dovelands area giving a response rate of 31%.The results show clear support for the 20 mph speed limit and traffic calming features.

We did

As a result of the support for the proposal, the City Mayor has approved the implementation of the scheme which is scheduled to come into force later in 2020 (subject to delays caused by Coronavirus).

We asked

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

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

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

You said

Summary of consultation responses:

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

Yes - 8

No - 55

 

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

Yes – 10

No - 53

 

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

Yes - 13

No - 50

 

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

We did

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

We asked

We proposed the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in the Morland Avenue area.

You said

Six responses were received to the online consultation, five of which were within the consultation delivery area and one outside.

We also carried out a paper consultation to residents in the area covered by the 20mph speed limit.

111 letters were delivered. 48 replied including six by the online consultation which was a 43% response rate.

38 (79%) were in favour of the proposed 20mph speed limit, nine (19%) against and one (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 late 2019.

We asked

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

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

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

You said

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

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

We received 72 responses to the survey:

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

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

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

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

We did

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

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

We asked

We consulted on proposed modifications to Saffron Lane Athletics Stadium as part of an £85,000 investment in the facility.

The core proposal was to convert the centre of the stadium so it can be used as a multi-sports site, accommodating additional sports such as football, rugby or American football.

You said

625 comments were made to the proposals (online only).
63% of these were supportive of the general view that Saffron Lane should be a multi-sport facility. 31% of respondents were against the proposals.
Of the 31% of comments that were made against the proposals, their generic views were:

  • Athletics would be diminished because of the changes
  • Money would be better spent on other areas of the stadium
  • Mud would be carried onto the track
  • There would be operational challenges hosting large events
  • Issues with disability access to participate and spectate.

We did

Following the consultation officers have been working on an optimum design solution for the infield. The design has been shaped by the feedback received.

Over the coming months officers will be working on a design brief that will provide a further level of detail, including indicative costs and timescales. Once we have completed this work we will share more information and any provisional timescales for bringing forward this project.

We asked

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

You said

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

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

We did

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

We asked

We consulted on a proposal to end the funding that Adult Social Care (ASC) provides to six housing associations. The funding is used to provide support services to residents living in 31 non-council sheltered housing schemes. These services support people who, in most cases, do not meet the council’s threshold for care and support.

As part of the consultation the council wanted to understand whether the six housing associations could continue to provide some form of support to these residents without ASC funding.

You said

Council officers worked closely with the six housing associations and their residents to gauge views on the proposal. In total we met with 111 people through 13 meetings. 95 of those people were residents and 16 were housing association staff.

The meetings were held in the day rooms of schemes affected across the city to ensure they were accessible to the residents.

As part of the main consultation we received 207 responses.

Responses were received from a range of stakeholders although 67% of responses received were from the residents of the 31 sheltered schemes.

Comments made through the focus group meetings and responses from consultation surveys indicated residents were concerned about losing the funding for their support service. They were also clear about the value they derived from that service. Where there were clear plans in place from the housing association to mitigate against the impact of the proposal, residents felt reassured.

The main comment in terms of how the service met their needs was that they valued the wellbeing support as a way of helping residents remain independent.

The support, residents felt, also helped to reduce isolation and loneliness. Residents described it as a lifeline in terms of supporting their ability to participate in the community of the scheme/s.

We did

The council has decided to end the funding for the ILS sheltered support service.

Although residents raised valid concerns about the impact of the proposal, the consultation process enabled council officers to understand how residents in these schemes would continue to be supported, without ASC funding.

All six housing associations demonstrated well developed ideas for continuing the support. Some of the proposals may require residents to pay for support in the future but council officers were reassured that residents would be fully consulted on those proposals.

Other forms of support, such as volunteer roles and good neighbour initiatives will also be considered, and this will help mitigate against some of the impact residents raised around loneliness and isolation.

We asked

We asked for views on new powers that would allow the council to increase premiums for properties that have been empty and unfurnished for two years or more from April 2019.

You said

  • 84 responses were received, 63 of whom were also residents of Leicester.
  • A majority of respondents (60%) supported introducing one or more of the premiums outlined. 39% supported no change.
  • 44% of respondents said the changes would have no or little impact on them personally, 26% said they would impact financially but this was justified, and 30% would be financially impacted and felt this was unjustified.
  • 71% of respondents felt there should be some exemptions, although there was no agreement as to who these should apply to.

We did

The consultation feedback was presented to full council on 15 November 2018. A decision was made to adopt the proposed premiums of 100% for homes empty for more than two years in 2019/20, and to approve in principle adopting further premiums for homes left empty for five and ten years in 2020/21 and 2021/22.

The council decided to adopt the government recommended exemptions for occupants serving in the Armed Forces and self-contained annex properties.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposed implementation of temporary speed humps on Ashton Green Road and for opinions on the overall traffic calming and speed reductions in the area.

You said

34 responses were received to the online consultation

14 were from Glebelands
6 were from the Glebelands Park/ Morris Homes Development
5 were from Thurcaston Park
3 were from Elsewhere in Leicester
6 were from outside the City Boundary
 

510 letters were sent and we had 34 responses online, which is a 7% response rate.
21 (62%) were in favour of the proposed implementation of temporary speed humps.
13 (38%) were against the proposed implementation of temporary speed humps.

We did

As a result of the support of the proposal, the City Mayor has approved the scheme which is scheduled to come into force early in 2019.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposed reduction to the minimum standard level of income that a service user can keep for Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) within the financial assessment, from £20 to £10 for a single person (and from £15 to £10, if one of a couple).

You said

We consulted with service users (or their carers or representatives) receiving non-residential care.

A total of 788 responses to the consultation were received, via post or online submissions.

57% of respondents disagreed with the proposals.

43% of respondents agreed with the proposal or did not have a view to express.

We did

More than half of the people who are currently in receipt of DRE (53%) would not be affected by the proposals.

Analysis of service users with DRE indicated that 62% of service users have DRE related costs of less than £10 per week.

The Assistant City Mayor for Adult Social Care and Wellbeing has approved the proposal, which will be implemented in full from 1 April 2019. Discretion will remain in the financial assessment process and where a person can show that their qualifying disability expenditure is in excess of the minimum standard level, the council will allow them to keep more income to cover those costs.

We asked

The council consulted on a proposal to end the service. This is because our review found that although the service is valued by those attending, there was no evidence that it prevents people from developing eligible social care needs.
 

You said

Respondents felt that the service helps avoid social isolation and helps them with maintaining a healthy lifestyle and independence.
 

We did

The council has decided to end the service which currently only supports around 12 people at any one time. If service users have an assessment for adult social care and they are eligible for services, they could receive services such as specialist community opportunities (day services) for people with brain injury.

We asked

We sought the views of residents, businesses, gambling operators, responsible authorities and other interested parties on the content of our Gambling Policy for the coming three years.

You said

Four responses were received during the consultation period, one of which was from an organisation and one from a representative of gambling operators.

We did

The proposed policy and details of the consultation responses, together with officer observations, were reported to the full council on 15 November 2018. The policy was approved and subsequently published on our website in December 2018. The new policy will take effect on 1 February 2019.

We asked

We asked whether you wanted us to align our term dates with those set by Leicestershire County Council, or whether you preferred us to set different dates with half terms of equal length.

You said

You said that you preferred term dates to be aligned with the county council. 4,099 responses were received, with around 80% supporting the city council having the same holiday dates as the county council.

We did

We did decide to align our term dates with those set by the county council for the academic years 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22.