We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

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 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 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 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

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 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

We reviewed our proposed actions in light of the results of the survey. We are dealing with the current day-to-day issues around parking, and we're also ensuring our actions support the Council’s wider plans to improve air quality and build in sustainability for the future.

We have updated our action plan and we have produced a short report to illustrate some of the works we are carrying out.

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.