1 / 24

Huntingdonshire District Council Place Survey 2008 Presentation by Sofia Vartsaki

Huntingdonshire District Council Place Survey 2008 Presentation by Sofia Vartsaki. mruk research ltd 9 Northburgh Street London EC1V 0AH Tel : 0845 676 0078 south@cellomruk.co.uk www.cellomruk.co.uk. Overview. Introduction and Methodology Main Findings - National Indicators

amos
Download Presentation

Huntingdonshire District Council Place Survey 2008 Presentation by Sofia Vartsaki

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Huntingdonshire District Council Place Survey 2008 Presentation by Sofia Vartsaki mruk research ltd9 Northburgh Street London EC1V 0AHTel : 0845 676 0078 south@cellomruk.co.uk www.cellomruk.co.uk

  2. Overview • Introduction and Methodology • Main Findings - National Indicators - Improvements for local area - Views on District and County Council - Waste and Refuse Services - Leisure facilities

  3. Methodology • Place Survey template questionnaire used • Postal survey sent to 3,000 addresses • Addresses from Postal Address File (PAF) supplied by Audit Commission • Three full mailings to maximise response rates • Fieldwork: September - December 2008 • A total of 1,177 residents responded. Response rate: 39% • Results accuracy: ±2.8% at 95% confidence limit • Data weighted by Audit Commission to reflect population

  4. NI 1 – % of people who agree their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together The majority of respondents agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area. Results comparable with East Cambridgeshire.

  5. NI 2 – % of people who ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ strongly feel that they belong to their neighbourhood When compared with other districts in Cambridgeshire, there is a strong sense of belonging to the local neighbourhood

  6. NI 4 – % of people who agree they can influence decisions in their locality Few respondents think they can influence decisions. A quarter of respondents in Huntingdonshire definitely disagree they can influence decisions affecting their local area and nearly half tend to disagree

  7. NI 5 – % of people satisfied overall with local area (as a place to live) The majority of respondents are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Results are comparable with Cambridge City and East Cambridgeshire

  8. NI 17 – Perceptions of ASB (Combined measure - % who score 11 points or more. Maximum score 21) ... noisy neighbours or loud parties? ... teenagers hanging around on the streets? ... rubbish or litter lying around? ... vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage? ... people using or dealing drugs? ... people being drunk or rowdy in public places? ... abandoned or burnt out cars? Results comparable with Cambridge City and East Cambridgeshire.

  9. NI 21 – % of people who agree the police & other local services are successfully dealing with local concerns about ASB and crime issues This NI includes ‘don’t know’ responses. A fifth of respondents (19%) answered ‘don’t know’ and a further 31% answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’.

  10. Other National Indicators

  11. Other National Indicators Huntingdonshire scores highest in the percentage of residents who feel well informed about what to do in a large-scale emergency

  12. Other National Indicators Huntingdonshire scores highest in the percentage of residents who feel they are treated with respect by local public services.

  13. Q10a – % of people who agree Huntingdonshire District Council provides value for money Over a third of respondents neither agree nor disagree which could indicate a lack of awareness of Council spending

  14. Q10a – % of people who agree their District Council provides value for money Results comparable to Cambridge City with the two Councils the highest for providing the highest value for money

  15. Q10b – % of people who agree Cambridgeshire County Council provides value for money Two fifths said they neither agree nor disagree that Cambridgeshire County Council provides value for money (42%).

  16. Q11a – % of people who are satisfied with the way Huntingdonshire District Council runs things A third of respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This could be an area for further study to ensure satisfaction is increased with these respondents.

  17. Q11a – % of people who are satisfied with the way their District Council runs things Results are comparable to Cambridge City

  18. Q11b – % of people who are satisfied with the way Cambridgeshire County Council runs things Two fifths are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Results comparable to Cambridge City.

  19. Q8 – % of people who are satisfied with services provided or supported by Huntingdonshire DC Overall, respondents are satisfied with services. Across all services, Huntingdonshire has highest levels of satisfaction.

  20. Q8 – % of people who are satisfied with services provided or supported by Huntingdonshire DC When compared to other districts, Huntingdonshire has higher levels of satisfaction with parks & open spaces and libraries. Cambridge City highest level of satisfaction with all arts and leisure facilities except libraries.

  21. Most in need of improvement Most in need of improving is activities for teenagers. This is followed by roads and pavement repairs, public transport and level of traffic congestion

More Related