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 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

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

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

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

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.

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

Many respondents provided comments and made further suggestions. There were 1,044 responses to the consultation proposals giving a wide range of views whilst choosing their preferred option as follows:
 
Option 1 this was to:

Reduce the level of funding for open access youth clubs and services costs £690,000 per year.

Key changes:

  • LCC would not provide open access youth clubs,
  • Voluntary sector would receive funding for open access
  • Reduced targeted youth support sessions
  • Reduce street-based youth work
  • Reduce youth participation and involvement
  • Reduce one to one

 
Option 2 this was to:

Reduce the level of funding for open access youth clubs and services costs £692,000 per year

Key changes:
LCC would continue to provide a reduced open access youth club offer
Voluntary sector would receive funding for targeted sessions for vulnerable young people
Reduced targeted youth support sessions
Reduce street-based youth work
Reduce youth participation and involvement
 
Option 3 this was to:
 
The council would not run or fund any youth clubs and reduce other youth services costs £536,000 per year

Key changes:
No open access youth clubs
Voluntary sector would receive funding for targeted sessions for vulnerable young people
Reduced targeted youth support sessions
Reduce street-based youth work
Reduce youth participation and involvement
Reduce one to one support
 
Whilst Option 2 with 55% support is the preferred option for a remodelled youth service offer for young people receiving the highest vote and the most positive comments.

Option 1 received 28% support and Option 3 received 4% support from respondents; no option chosen 7% and other suggestions 6%.
 

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 1 February 2018

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 sought views on the revised SEND Home to School Transport Policy. This updated the policy in the light of the Children and families Act 2014.

You Said

There were three responses to the consultation. Two people said they agreed with the revised policy. One person said that hey felt the council “was not travelling in the right direction”.
 

We Did

The SEND Home to School travel Policy has been updated and published. It will be reviewed to ensure the council optimises the opportunities and life chances for young people and children.

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.