Citizen's Panel March 2002 (Summary)

Back to top of page...

Introduction:

The overall aim of this survey was to gather views and opinions from residents of the Borough to assist Hasting Borough Council with service reviews relating to 'Car Parking', 'Leisure and Sports Facilities', 'Catering Facilities', 'Cultural Facilities', and 'Council Services via the Internet or Telephone'.

Self-completion questionnaires were sent to all 1237 members of the Councils Citizens' panel. Questionnaires were posted, using Royal Mail, on 25th March 2002. Respondents were asked to return the questionnaire to NWA as soon as practicable in the free-post addressed envelope provided, but no later than 12th April. A total of 801 respondents returned completed postal questionnaires. Eleven panel members indicated their wish to stand down, had moved or were otherwise unable to complete the questionnaire making a valid sample of 1226 and an overall response rate of 65.3%.

Back to top of page...

Summary of Main Findings

• Respondents were firstly asked whether they owned or had the use of a car. 83.2% said that they had with 16.8% saying they had not. When asked where they mostly parked when in Hastings or St. Leonards town centres or the Old Town over half of all respondents who had access to a car said that they used car parks in Hastings Town Centre, (55.5%). A further 15.7% however said that they parked on the street outside of the controlled parking zone with 9.8% saying that they parked within the controlled parking zone.
• Over a third of respondents said that they used the Priory Street car park, (35.6%), with 19.1% saying that they had not used any of the named car parks in the last year. 13.2% of respondents to the panel survey mentioned Pelham Place as the car park most used in the last year with no other car park being mentioned by more than 10% of the sample.
• Satisfaction with aspects of the car park most used by respondents was high, (above 80%), for all aspects with the exception of information about the availability of spaces where it fell to only 35.6% of respondents, (very satisfied - 7.9%, fairly satisfied - 27.7%); and for ease of parking in Summer, (April to September), where it fell to just under half of all respondents, (49.9%, very - 6.2%, fairly satisfied - 43.7%).

• Respondents who had used car parks in the last year were asked how they would most prefer to pay for parking when using car parks. Over a third said that they would prefer to pay on foot when returning to their car, (37.8%), 28% said that they would prefer pay and display and 22.9%would prefer to pay on exiting the car park. Only 0.7% said that they would prefer to pay with a voucher purchased from a local shop and 6.6% said they had no preference. A further 4% failed to answer the question suggesting that they too had no preference.
• In respect of paying for parking on street only 4.8% of panel members wished to pay with a voucher purchased from a local shop, (resident on street 8.6%); and 70.9% of panel members preferred pay and display. Just under a quarter of panel members did not have a preference on this, (18.2% no preference, 6.2% missing data - 24.4%).
• Respondents were asked, if they received a parking fine, how they would prefer to pay it. 37.9% said that they would prefer to post a cheque. The most popular means of payment next to posting a cheque was that of paying over the phone by credit or debit card. 17.3% of respondents said that they would prefer this method.
• Respondents were told that there is currently no difference between the fines given to people for overstaying their time and the fines given to those who avoid paying altogether. They were asked whether they thought there should be a difference. 85.7% of respondents said that they thought there should be a difference with only 8.4% thinking that there should not. (5.9% don't know or missing data).
• Only small minorities of respondents said that they had used parking permits. The most used permits were the car park season ticket and the on street residents permit, both of which were used by 3.9% of all respondents. The primary reason for non use of the permits was that it was not needed or the respondent would not use it regularly and this ranges from 63.9% - car park season ticket to 70.1% of business / traders permit. A similar picture emerges relating to the parking permits for resident's visitors. Only 2.3% of respondents said that they had used this with 72% of respondents saying that they had not used them because they had no need for them.
• 18.3% of respondents said that they or a member of their family have an orange or blue disabled parking badge. This rises to 51.5% of respondents who said that they or another person within their household suffered from a long term illness or disability.
• In respect of the number of on street parking spaces 58% of respondents felt these were insufficient, with 23.7% thinking that there were about the right amount and 5.8% saying that there were more than enough of these spaces.
• Just under half of all respondents thought that there were not enough car parking spaces, (49.4%), and this rises to 51.2% of people with a car in the household.
• 28.9% of all respondents felt that there were too few spaces for people with disabilities and this rises to 51.4% of respondents where there was somebody with a disability in the household.
• Over half of all panel members did not express a view about the sufficiency of spaces for motor cycles: 43.8% said that they did not know and a further 11.2% did not answer the question. 14.4% thought that were insufficient spaces for motorcycles and 23.2% that there were about enough.
• Only just over one in seven respondents said that they had used the Parking Shop at Century House, Menzies Road, (13.8%) in the last year. Satisfaction with aspects of the Parking Shop was very high with the exception of its location where almost as many people were dissatisfied, (49.4% dissatisfied), as were satisfied, (50.6%). Ease of contact had nearly a quarter of respondents who had used the Parking Shop saying that they were dissatisfied, (23.1%), although satisfaction was still relatively high with this aspect of service - 74.4%.
• All other aspects of service from the Parking Shop were thought to be satisfactory by over 80% of respondents, with over 90% being satisfied with the speed of the service, (90.4%). Overall 82.6% of respondents declared themselves to be either very, (25.4%), or fairly satisfied, (57.2%), with the service they had received.
• Respondents were asked in what way they felt that the Parking Shop could be improved. Just over a third had no opinion, (33.5%) on the suggestions and a further 9.4% did not respond to the question: 42.9% - no opinion. Most popular amongst the suggestions were relocating the Parking Shop to a more centralised location, (38.4%); publicising the location of the Parking Shop, (34.7%), and opening the Parking Shop at weekends, (26.6%). 15.8% of respondents would be in favour of improving the Parking Shop by extending the opening hours and 13.1% by providing all of the facilities on the Internet.
• Just over a quarter of all respondents said that they had had contact with parking attendants in the last two years or so, (26.6%). 73.4% had not had contact. Parking attendants were most positively rated as 'always' being approachable, (39.7%), and 'always' being friendly, (32.8%).
• The majority of respondents were in favour of parking attendants taking on all of the responsibilities listed with the exception of monitoring the CCTV cameras within Hastings and St. Leonards, (29.4% in favour), and helping with major incidents and public events, (44.2%), Just over half of all respondents were in favour of parking attendants providing a street warden / community safety function, (53.6%).
• Five additional responsibilities were thought to be appropriate by over 80% of all respondents: dealing with disabled space misuse, (87.5%); powers to stop people parking at bus stops, (87.2%); dealing with disabled badge misuse, 86.3%); enforcement of school keep clear markings, (85.4%); and enforcement of obstructions, (80.1%).
• Overall around 30% of respondents said that they would be in favour of extending the controlled parking zones to the various named areas of the Borough. They were least in favour of extending it to the whole of the Borough, however, with only 17.4% of respondents saying 'yes' to this and 53.9% responding 'no' they would not be in favour.
• The vast majority of respondents were of the view that the Council should continue to have a role in providing sports and leisure facilities in Hastings and St. Leonards, (92.1%). Only 2.2% of respondents thought that they should not with the remaining 5.7% saying that they did not know, or not having an opinion).
• Respondents were asked approximately how often they had used leisure facilities provided by the Council over the previous year. Summerfields is the most used centre with only 53% of respondents saying that they have not used it. Horntye Park appears to be the next centre used by the most respondents with 20.9% of respondents indicating some use. 13.6% had used Falaise, 12.6% Hillcrest and 13.3% William Parker School.
• Not only is Summerfields used by the largest number of respondents, it is also used more frequently than the others. 22.9% of respondents said that they used Summerfields at least once a month whereas only 5.1% visited Falaise, 4.1% visited Hillcrest, 7.2% visited Horntye and 3.2% visited William Parker School on a once a month or more basis.
• The most highly rated aspect of Summerfields is the ways of paying, (mean score of 2.1903), with all aspects being scored relatively highly. The lowest score for Summerfields was received in respect of its cleanliness which was scored as 'below average' having a mean score of only 3.1892. (The lower the mean score the higher the satisfaction level).
• The highest rated aspect of Falaise is accessibility within the building, (1.9578), followed by staff helpfulness, (1.9731). Least well rated at this venue was value for money, (2.6523).
• Accessibility within the building was also the highest rated aspect of Hill crest, (1.889), with ways of paying being the next most highly rated aspect, (2.0703). Least highly rated here was the range of activities and services available, (2.6648).
• Although Summerfields is used by the largest percentage of respondents this tends to have a lower satisfaction rating with three of the five ratings below a mean of 2.6: cleanliness (3.1892), activity booking system, (2.6151); information, (2.6018), the others being range of activities at Hillcrest, (2.6648), and value for money at Falaise, (2.6523).
• The reasons given by the largest percentage of non users for not using the leisure centres were lack of time/too busy, (29.2%); ill health or disability, (23.1%); and that they did not enjoy sports or fitness activities, (22.9%). Also mentioned were the cost or expense, (18.7%), and belonging to another centre, (11.3%). Also mentioned by more than 10% of the sample were poor cleanliness or maintenance, (11%), and lack of parking, (10.2%).
• All respondents were asked about improvements that would encourage them to use the leisure facilities more. None of the suggested improvements were indicated as encouraging greater use for 40.1% of respondents in relation to Summerfields, 73.3% in relation to Falaise and 82.4% on relation to Hillcrest.
• The most popular improvement for all centres included cheaper prices, (Summerfields 32.6%, 9.1% Hillcrest %, Falaise 16.4%): with better information about what's available being second in Falaise, (16%) and most important in Hillcrest, (12.1%).
• For Summerfields second most popular suggestion was upgraded changing rooms, (32.4%). Better information was also important at Summerfield with 25.8% of respondents mentioning this. 18.5% indicated that swimming pool improvements would encourage greater use of the facility.
• Less than two thirds of all respondents felt that the Council should continue to have a role in providing catering facilities, (65.6%), with 13.5% saying that it should not and 20.9% saying that they did not know. Just over half of all respondents said that they had not used or visited any of the facilities mentioned, and 30.6% had visited the White Rock Cafe, 20.1% Marina Pavilion and 19.4% Summerfield Cafe.
• Ratings for aspects of the service and facilities at White Rock Cafe showed that no aspect was considered to be poor, (mean score rating of '3' or more). Highest rated here were the general environment, (2.2813), cleanliness of the cafe, (2.3054); and accessibility within the building, (2.4508). Least well rated were the quality of activities/services, (2.7729), and range of activities and services, (2.8097).
• The most highly rated aspect of the Marina Pavilion was accessibility within the building, (2.3481), with the general environments being the next most highly rated aspect, (2.622). Two aspects give a little cause for concern. These are the quality of the food, (2.9591); and menu choice, (2.9985); both of which, with mean scores of 2.9+ are close to below average ratings.
• The most highly rated aspect of the Summerfields Cafe was the accessibility within the building, (2.1522), followed by the cleanliness of the cafe, (2.7729). There were four aspects of the Summerfields Cafe rated as below average, (3+ mean score). These were the quality of activities and services, (3.013); quality of the food, (3.0748); the cost, (3.1448); and menu choice, (3.223).
• Consistently achieving the higher mean scores is the White Rock Cafe with four out of the top six scores. Summerfields achieved the highest overall score for accessibility within the building, (2.1522), but otherwise tends to be the facility with the lowest satisfaction rates, achieving five out of the six lowest scores overall.
• Most important for all respondents in respect of the listed cultural activities were parks, squares and open spaces. Differences between age groups include interest in the theatre, libraries and conservation rising with age, whereas festivals and events, cinema, live music and children's play, are less important to the older age groups than to the younger.
• Respondents were asked whether they were aware of any groups in the local community that are not well provided for in terms of cultural activities or facilities. Just over half of all respondents, (52.4%), said that they were not aware of any such groups. However, over a quarter of all respondents said that they thought that young people were not well provided for, (25.4%), and 15.8% said that children were not well provided for. 12.3% thought that older people were not well provided and 11.2% thought the same of people with disabilities. 10.6% said that carers for people with disabilities were not well provided for, and 10.3% families. Least mentioned were members of ethnic communities, (3.5%), men of all ages, (4.1%), and women of all ages, (4.4%).
• Respondents were asked about appliances they had in their household. The vast majority ticked that they had a telephone, (95.5%), and a television, (83.1%). 77.7% of respondents said that they had a mobile phone and this rises to 92% of respondents under the age of 45 years. 51.1% of respondents said that they had a computer in their household, (64% of respondents under 45 years but falling to 25.9% of respondents 65 years and over). 31.6% of respondents said that they had cable, or digital or satellite television.
• Just under half of all respondents said that they had access to the Internet at home, (48.8%). Again this is highest in the younger age groups, (61% under 45 reducing to 25.5% 65 years and over). 23.7% said that they had access to the Internet at work and 7% said that they had access elsewhere. Overall 40.8% said that they did not have access to the Internet through any of these means.
• 61% of all respondents said that they had used the Internet with 39% saying that they had not. 80.3% of people under 45 had used the Internet. Men were more likely to have used the internet than women, men - 67.4% used internet compared to 55.4% of women).
• Those people who had used the Internet were asked whether they had ever visited the websites of a number of public sector organisations. 53.7% said that they had not visited any of the listed organisations or other similar types. 35.9% said that they had visited the Hastings Borough Council site and 16% that they had visited East Sussex County Council.
• Respondents who had not yet used the Internet were asked why this was so. 48.8% said that they did not have access to a computer/internet with 30.7% saying that they had no interest in using it. 28.2% said that they did not know how to use the Internet and 26.8% did not feel that they had a need to use it.
• The highest priorities for introduction by the Council using either telephone or internet, are reporting problems in the area, for example nuisance behaviour, (mean score of 1.4403), and requesting a service, for example bulky waste collection, also over the telephone or by internet, (1.4751). These two top priorities are followed by four other services that score at the 1.5 level: - information about Council services, (1.5577); find out 'What's on' locally, (1.5618); buy tickets, (1.5714); and find out about refuse collection days, (1.5958).
• The most popular places of access to the internet outside of the home were Hastings Information Centre with nearly a third of all respondents indicating that they would be likely to access the internet here, (32.1%). Libraries were also popular, (31%). Post Offices were mentioned by more than a quarter of respondents (25.3%) as places where they would be very or fairly likely to access the internet. Schools, (20.6%); advice agencies, (20.5%); train stations, (20.2%); shopping centres, (19.2%); and Council Offices, (19%); were mentioned by around one in five respondents as places where they would be very or fairly likely to access the internet. Least mentioned were access points on the street, (7.8%); and bus shelters, (8.8%).

Back to top of page...

A. Aims and Objectives of Research

A.1
The overall aim of this survey was to gather views and opinions from residents of the Borough to assist Hasting Borough Council with service reviews relating to 'Car Parking', 'Leisure and Sports Facilities', 'Catering Facilities', 'Cultural Facilities', and 'Council Services via the Internet or Telephone'.

A.2
Specific information collected was relating to:

1. Car Parking (parking areas and car parks used, satisfaction with car parks, preferences for payment, parking fines, permits for parking, the Parking Shop, parking attendant and controlled parking zones).
2. Leisure and Sports Facilities (continuance of the provision of these as a Council function, usage of leisure facilities, satisfaction with aspects of leisure centres, reasons for non use, and encouraging greater use of facilities).
3. Catering Facilities (continuance of the provision of these as a Council function, usage of facilities and satisfaction with aspects of the catering facilities).
4. Cultural Facilities (importance of cultural activities in enriching the quality of life, and nomination of groups not well provided for).
5. Council Services via the Internet or Telephone (access to new technology and the Internet, usage of Internet and visiting of sites, reasons for non use of Internet, usefulness of being able to access services via the Internet and over the telephone, likelihood of access services from places other than home).

Back to top of page...

B Analysis of Results

B.1
Data was analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).

B.2
Weightings were applied to ensure the survey results were based on a sample which was representative of the Borough population in terms of age and gender. It should be noted that younger people, especially young men, are under-represented in respect of both the returns and the Panel itself. Details of 'weights' applied, and of the 'achieved' and 'weighted' sample, are shown in the following table.

B.3
Tables were then produced from the weighted data, showing 'unweighted counts' and 'weighted percentages' for all questions, for the overall sample, and for various sample subgroups. These are attached as Appendix 2.

B.4
Data has been analysed by tenure, (owner occupier and rented); disability in the household; gender and broad age bands, (under 45 years, 45 to 64 years and 65 years and over - please note under-representation of young people mentioned above); and by Electoral Ward. It should be noted that the numbers in each Electoral Ward are too small for any statistical significance to be implied to differences between them. Details of the numbers of panel members per ward in 2001 and 2002, the percentage of the overall panel for each ward and the percentage responses are shown in the table below. It can be seen that some wards are probably over represented on the panel and others potentially under represented. This may require some targeted additional recruitment to the under represented wards.

B.5 All survey results are subject to a 'margin of error' (sampling error): this is dependent on both the sample number and the % giving a particular response. The table below gives an indication of the potential sampling error (at the 95% Confidence Level), for a selection of sample numbers and responses. (Note: calculations of sampling error are based on the premise of a randomly selected sample, and whilst a random selection of residents were initially invited to participate in the Residents Panel not everyone accepted, and not all Panel members returned questionnaires. The responses in the survey must therefore be looked at as indications of the 'responses' likely to have been received from the total population if they had all been asked, rather than the overall population opinion.)

Projected Sampling Error (95% confidence levels)

Back to top of page...