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 the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements on Lower Granton Road

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements in Roseburn Park.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme will be used in consideration of future potential design alterations after the 3-month trial.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements on Bankhead Drive, Bankhead Avenue and South Gyle Access.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements on Balgreen Road.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements on Carrington Road.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

To inform the draft Open Space Strategy, the Council held a stakeholder workshop in May 2016 involving groups and organisations from across the city with an interest in open space.

Participants were asked to consider:

  • the different uses that greenspaces should provide, from small local spaces to large neighbourhood parks;
  • how greenspace could encourage people of all ages to keep active; and
  • the quality of greenspace in a sample of new developments.

Members of the public were then invited to have their say on the draft Strategy, including the ideas from the workshop, through an online survey.

The survey was shared via social media, Edinburgh Civic Forum, Neighbourhood Partnerships, Edinburgh City Libraries, park notice boards, Friends of Parks, Edinburgh Leisure, cafes and schools.

You Said

  • Overall, 86% of respondents thought the draft Strategy would improve Edinburgh’s greenspaces over the next 5 years.
  • There was general recognition of the value of Edinburgh’s open spaces towards health, biodiversity, wellbeing and the enjoyment of residents and visitors.
  • Clear support was expressed for ongoing management of the city’s parks according to the Green Flag Award criteria and for newly built parks to attain comparable standards as the city grows.
  • 64% of respondents thought play area quality had improved and 97% wished to see streets and greenspaces designed to encourage more informal children’s play.
  • 83% of respondents agreed the city’s green network had improved but that more could be done to connect greenspaces by foot, bike and to link wildlife habitats.
  • 94% of respondents agreed that communities should be able to improve local greenspaces to create meeting places, keep active and grow food.
  • 85% of respondents agreed that cemeteries should be improved to conserve local history and provide more attractive greenspace for residents and visitors.
  • 84% of respondents supported the long-term aspiration to create a series of multi-pitch sports venues.

We Did

Based on the broad support received for the Strategy’s principles, the final Strategy was approved at Planning Committee in December 2016 and can now be used to guide greenspace management and planning decisions.

Open Space 2021 puts renewed emphasis on the benefits of open space and the Strategy clarifies how open space is protected by Planning policy and legal constraints.

New targets were set in order to improve access to quality greenspaces and play areas over the next 5 years.

An update to the Edinburgh Design Guidance will explain how new greenspaces should meet the Strategy’s standards, based on comments from the stakeholder workshop.

In addition to continuing to raise the quality of public parks, the Strategy supports the creation of further community gardens, expansion of the Edinburgh Living Landscape initiative and improvements to cemeteries and burial grounds.

The basis of four Open Space Action Plans plans, aligned with Edinburgh’s Localities, has been agreed to support delivery of the Strategy.

The Open Space Strategy will be linked to a new Physical Activity and Sport Strategy.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for a cycle route and walking improvements at the junctions of Grange Road with Lauder Road, Tantallon Place and Lover's Loan.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements on Gilmerton Road, The Pillars path, Niddrie House Road and Hay Avenue.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

We asked for views on the proposed designs for cycle and walking improvements on McDonald Road.

You Said

The majority of feedback was supportive or strongly supportive of the proposals. There were some suggested design alterations and clarifications posed. These are detailed in the consultation report which can be accessed below, along with the Council’s response to each of them.

We Did

The feedback to the scheme has been used to evolve and improve the design. Details of the design changes is included in the consultation report, which can be accessed via the link below or by using the contact details supplied.

We shall consult again when the detailed design drawings a ready. The consultation shall be available online and via other forms if requested. All people who have asked to be kept informed about the scheme shall be alerted when the consultation opens.

We Asked

Members of the public were invited to have their say in how the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site should be run.

The survey was based around 14 key themes: awareness of the World Heritage status, maintenance of buildings and streets, moving around, natural space, city centre economy, guidance, new developments, housing, visitor management, sense of belonging, facilities, sense of control, safety, livability.

You Said

Some of the celebrated strengths (scoring 5/7 or more):

  • Natural Space
  • Identity and belonging
  • Livability
  • Feeling Safe
  • Facilities and amenities

Overall, the respondents are very satisfied with Edinburgh’s city centre as a place to live and work. The parks and green spaces were very highly rated and the city centre is felt to be safer than most the one’s of other comparable capitals. More lighting at night and a reduction of the traffic speed was suggested to create an even greater sense of safety in the area.

Edinburgh’s strong visual identity and its years of history were thought to be contributing to a real sense of pride and belonging to the city. The respondents felt generally positive about the level of amenities and facilities the city centre offers, as there is a wide range of offer and there are easily accessible.

 

Areas of debate (scoring 3 to 4/7):

  • Housing
  • Moving around
  • City centre economy

The cost of living, the city centre economy and the ease to move around were topics that generated a lot of comments.

Affordable housing is a key issue and it was felt that the city centre should be providing more affordable housing options to retain its resident population in the city centre.  And while the compactness of the city is seen as an asset, many said that traffic still dominates pedestrian and cycling movement. Opinion was divided as to whether the Royal Mile achieved enough for its residents as it is thought to be too geared towards tourists.

 

Recognisable challenges (Scoring 3/7 or lower)

Out of the 14 initial themes, the 6 themes that scored the lowest or engendered the most negative comments were:

  • Care and Maintenance of buildings and streets
  • Control and Guidance
  • Contribution of new developments to city centre
  • Influence and sense of control
  • Visitor Management
  • Awareness of World Heritage Site

 

When asked to think about the level of care and maintenance of buildings and streets, residents felt that there is still a lot to be done. Issues such as general litter and the quality of road and pavements were mentioned. Making sure that planning laws were enforced is critical for the respondents. Recent new developments divided opinion, the respondents are hoping for better quality and more innovative architecture that is respectful of the Old Town and New Town’s architectural context. 

The influence and sense of control is one area that could be improved as the respondents felt they were being asked to participate but failed to see the impact of this participation.

The balance between visitor and resident needs was a source of numerous comments. The Royal Mile attracts the largest number of tourists but is seen to not deliver enough for the resident’s population. While despite the fact the awareness of the city centre’s World Heritage site status was rated highly, respondents were mostly unaware of what it meant and what the benefits were.

We Did

We will use this feeback to inform the review of the Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site Management Plan (2017-2022).

For more information, see the planning blog (https://planningedinburgh.com/category/world-heritage/ )

We Asked

We asked parents/carers for their views on the current situation regarding early years provision and on the Scottish Government's plans for the future - increasing hours from 600 to 1140 hours for all 3 and 4 year olds and eligible 2 yeard olds.

You Said

We outlined four models of how the new hours could potentially be introduced and asked parents/carers to say which they thought was best.  They came back with a clear response.

We Did

We will use the findings of the consultation to inform which models are piloted in the lead up to the introduction of 1140 hours by 2020. 

New nurseries which will be open from August 2017 will offer provision throughout the year, including during the school holidays. 

For more information, see the Early Years blog

 

We Asked

This consultation sought responses on a number of policy options contained within the draft Supplementary Guidance. 

You Said

Responses in general showed broad support for the preferred policy options on the basis that greater flexibility will enhance and maintain vitality, viability and occupancy rates. However, a number of concerns were also raised which the finalised version of the Supplementary Guidance seeks to address.

We Did

The consultation responses have been fed into a finalised Leith Town Centre Supplementary Guidance which was approved at Planning Committee on 19 May 2016.

We Asked

This consultation sought responses on a number of policy options contained within the draft Supplementary Guidance. 

You Said

Responses in general showed broad support for the preferred policy options on the basis that greater flexibility will enhance and maintain vitality, viability and occupancy rates. However, a number of concerns were also raised which the finalised version of the Supplementary Guidance seeks to address.

We Did

The consultation responses have been fed into a finalised Bruntsfield/Morningside Town Centre Supplementary Guidance which was approved at Planning Committee on 19 May 2016.

We Asked

This consultation aimed to gather feedback for the creation of the 2016-19 Antisocial Behaviour Strategy. The Consultation was on behalf of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership, and aimed to hear directly from individual respondents, visitors and interested parties about their experiences or perceptions of antisocial behaviour in Edinburgh. 

You Said

Responses in general showed strong support for a focus on communication and engagement with local communities as part of the next Antisocial Behaviour Strategy.

We Did

The response outcomes have been fed into the draft strategy, and distributed to partners to inform our future approach to Antisocial Behaviour in Edinburgh.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our budget proposals for 2016-20 and to tell us your ideas about how we should spend money and deliver services in the future.

You Said

You said we should try to protect education, care for older people, culture and services for vulnerable children and adults. These continue to be our priorities.

We Did

As a direct result of your feedback, councillors made changes to the 2016/17 budget. This included:

  • removing the draft proposal to reduce street crossing patrols
  • keeping the night noise team
  • removing the draft proposal to reduce the size of in-house home care service
  • not proceeding with the redesign of day care services for adults with learning disabilities
  • removing the proposal for a reduction in community centre staff
  • amending the proposal to review support staff in special schools, ensuring maintenance of both staff numbers and service delivery
  • removing the £0.5million proposal to review family and pupil support
  • maintaining the Council’s current level of funding for extra community policing
  • investing £15.069million in roads, pavements and cycleways to continue to make it easier for people to get around the city
  • allocating 9% of both the net capital expenditure and the net revenue expenditure of the Transport Division of the Council to cycling
  • limiting the Council housing rent increase to 2% in 2016/17.

If you would like further information the full feedback report is available.

We Asked

The Edinburgh Licensing Board asked for comments on the terms of its draft Gambling Policy Statement, to assist the board in agreeing its policy for the next three years.  The consultation was carried out to ensure that the Board complied with legal requirements to consult and eventually publish a new policy statement.

You Said

The Board received a small number of responses on the terms of the gambling policy statement.  The responses suggested some minor amendments to the terms of the Board’s existing policy.

We Did

The Licensing Board agreed to incorporate the suggestions made by consultees, amended the terms of the gambling policy and published its new policy on 31st January 2016 - http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/1708/licensing_board_-_gambling_policy_2016-2019

We Asked

Around 150 people answered 14 different questions about what they think of Queensferry using the Place Standard developed by Architecture and Design Scotland, the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland. This is an interactive tool which allows a community to assess its own strengths and weaknesses in terms of its qualities as a place in which to live and work. 31 different groups discussed the set questions about the quality of their environment addressing such issues as access to greenspace and parking levels. 

You Said

Scores for local economy, impact of vehicles and influence and sense of control were generally low. Traffic congestion is seen as a problem across Queensferry, especially along the High Street and around the schools along Station Road. In addition, there is a perception within Queensferry of a lack of professional type jobs. A view was coming through that Queensferry is a dormitory town for Edinburgh.

Scores for identity and belonging, feeling safe and natural space were generally high. Participants felt that Queensferry is a safe place to live and move around. In addition, Queensferry is seen as having a strong community identity, separate from Edinburgh.

We Did

We have collated all of the information we have collected so far and held several meetings with Queensferry and District Community Council, Queensferry Ambition and other council services. We are in the process of organising a final placemaking exercise with the business community and further meetings and focus groups with community representatives and the developers.

Find more information and keep updated with the Queensferry Placemaking Project at the Planning Blog.

We Asked

Every year we ask Council tenants for their views on how their rent should be spent. This year we asked how we could help to reduce their living costs by investing and delivering housing services differently.

You Said

There is strong support for a new approach of prioritising investment to support tenants to save money. More than three quarters of tenants who responded to the consultation said their top priorities would be:

  • Building more Council homes.
  • Offering cheaper energy.
  • Improving energy efficiency of homes.

More details on the consultation results can be found on www.edinburgh.gov.uk/housingbudgetstrategy

We Did

Using the outcome of the 'Invest to Save' consultation, we have developed the Council housing budget strategy. The budget strategy will support the expansion of the Council’s house building programme to 8,000 homes over the next 10 years. The budget also includes the delivery of energy efficiency improvements to existing homes, including 3,500 new heating systems and improved insulations insulation in 3,700 homes over the next five years. We will also look to develop tenants other priorities including cheaper broadband and digital services, discount cards and making land available to support tenants to grow food.

All this will be achieved through a combination of making the housing service leaner, making efficiencies in service delivery and through modest rent increases of 2%, ensuring that we keep rents affordable whilst delivering on tenants’ priorities to reduce their cost of living.

We Asked

The consultation asked 7 questions relating to issues associated with student housing, such as, the need for student housing, the continued need for locational guidance and the use of the concentration thresholds. In addition, there was an opportunity to submit any other comments.

You Said

A total of 49 responses were submitted electronically through the Council’s Consultation Hub. An additional 8 written submissions were received.

In summary, the responses reflected:

• support for additional student accommodation on campus

• draft guidance approach of locating student accommodation near campus not generally supported

• draft guidance approach of locating student accommodation near town centres not generally supported

• support for locating student accommodation in accessible locations

• current approach has failed to free up housing or deliver required much needed housing

• a feeling that student accommodation rents are expensive and there is a limited type of accommodation on offer

• support for lower concentration thresholds

• no evidence of negative impact from student accommodation

• need to acknowledge other uses which contribute to transient population

• need for more general and affordable housing; and

• support for requiring housing as part of mix of uses on larger sites, and ground floor alternative uses. 

We Did

The guidance has now been revised and approved by Planning Committee in light of research, monitoring work and the comments received during the consultation period.  The full report can be seen on the Council website (item 5.1).

We Asked

People and organisations could take part in the consultation online through the Council’s Consultation Hub, by requesting and completing a paper copy of the consultation documents and questionnaire, or through one of the 75 groups and meetings where the plan was discussed. 

68 responses were received.  48 of these were from groups or organisations and the remaining 20 from individual members of the public.

People were asked to answer several key questions:

  1. Are the key priorities the right ones and if not, what should the priorities be?
  2. Are the next steps we propose to take in respect of each of the priorities the right ones and if not, what steps should we be taking?
  3. Are there any significant issues we have missed and if so, what are they?
  4. Does the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment reflect your experience and understanding of the health and social care needs in the City?

You Said

People overwhelming agreed with the priorities.  There was particular support for the two priorities, ‘tackling health inequalities’ and ‘prevention and early intervention’.

Priority One Tackling health inequalities – People spoke of the need to work in partnership.  People spoke of the need to identify people affected by inequalities.  People spoke of the needs of particular groups of people. 

Priority Two - Prevention and early intervention – People were concerned that budget pressures would lead to crisis management being prioritised over prevention and early intervention. People spoke about what needed to be focussed on to deliver a preventative approach.

Priority Three - Person centred care.  People said that this is extremely important, and that a good relationship with staff is key to it.  People said that being listened to is important and stated factors which help good person centred working, including IT, technology and staff training. 

Priority Four -Providing the right care in the right place at the right time.  People spoke of the enablers to this, including the need to shift the balance of care, anticipatory care plans, flexible and responsive services and access to good information.  Delayed discharge was seen as a hindrance.

Priority Five - Making the best use of capacity across the system.  People spoke of the crucial role of the Third Sector. People spoke of the need for joint working, particularly around workforce planning and organisational development.

Priority Six - Managing our resources effectively. People were concerned that priorities in the Plan would not be delivered upon in a climate of reducing resources.  People supported using digital services to enhance services/ independence for people who use services and for carers. 

Many respondents named issues which were missing from the Plan.  These included the importance of housing, working well with Children and Families, and being clear on governance issues.  Adult Psychological Services were missing from the Plan. People also said that the Plan did not talk about people from ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay and transgender people, homeless people and hospital care for people with learning disabilities.  

People generally liked the JSNA and said that it would help with future planning and that it was important that it was kept up to date.  People made suggestions for further information to go into it.

We Did

As people agreed with the priorities we will keep all of the priorities in the final plan.

Priority One - Tackling health inequalities – We will work with Edinburgh Community planning partnership to address health inequalities across the city.  The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment will help us to better understand health inequalities across the city and will help us to monitor how well our actions are addressing health inequalities.  The move to locality working will mean we can focus on inequalities at a local level.  The Joint Plan recognises the needs of different groups of people.

Priority Two - Prevention and early intervention – we recognise the challenge of focussing on prevention at a time of significant budget pressure.  We will ensure that prevention is embedded through our strategic planning framework.  We will consider all of the suggestions made in the consultation as we develop our more detailed plans.

Priority Three - Person centred working.  We agree that person centred working is vital and will ensure it is a theme running through the final version of the Plan.  We will develop a new strategic planning framework that involves all partners, professionals, services users and communities, in developing services. We will look at developing IT, technology and training to support person centred working. 

Priority Four - Providing the right care in the right place at the right time.  The final version of the plan will set out a number of specific actions that we will take from 2016-2019.  These include gaining a better understanding of capacity, developing locality hubs which bring together staff from different disciplines together to minimise unnecessary hospital admissions and to support discharge, and improving anticipatory care plans

Priority Five - Making the best use of capacity across the system.  We will develop a strategic planning framework that actively involves partners, communities, citizens and staff in the planning and development of services.  We will establish a multi-agency steering group to develop a joined up approach to training across all sectors.  We will identify our requirements for data sharing and how this can be delivered. 

Priority Six - Managing our resources effectively.  The priorities have been developed in recognition of the challenging financial climate.  We will give more detail on this in the final plan.  We recognise the importance of technology/ digital services to support independence.  More detailed proposals will be developed in 2016/17.

We will make sure the identified gaps are filled in the final plan.

We will establish a steering group to make sure the JSNA remains an updated, useful tool to understand Health and Social care needs across the city.

We Asked

Young people to give us their views on youth clubs and youth work, whether they currently take part or not.  We asked what they thought was best, what they'd like to see changed and how best to inform young people about youth clubs.

You Said

437 young people took part across the city.  Young people told us why they do and don't take part, what they like best - meeting and making friends, interesting activities, supportive workers - and what they'd like to change - better venues and opening times, better publicity.  Young people want to be informed through schools, face to face and through social media. They want better links between youth clubs/work and schools.

We Did

Along with a group of young people who have been trained in action research, we analysed the findings and came up with questions for follow-up focus groups.  These took place in December 2015 and January 2016 and were jointly delivered by Council staff and young people.

Both the survey and the focus groups have generated a significant amount of feedback which will ensure that young people's priorities and concerns are a key part of future funding decisions.  Youth agencies bidding for future funding will have to show how they will address these priorities and concerns.

We Asked

For views on the revised Inverleith draft conservation area character appraisal.

You Said

That boundary anomalies should be identified, and clear and robust statements of the conservation priorities should be included.

We Did

Boundary changes were recommended in line with the comments.

We Asked

Questions on the proposed changes to planning guidance on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing. 

You Said

Responses were received on the following topics:

  • GENERAL - use of the policy in advance of the adoption of the LDP and that the guidance should be approved as statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance, how infrastructure is funded; and, the use of a standard development charge (citywide pot or tariff), the use of retrospective contributions, development viability and payment timings
  • APPROACH - the principle of unacceptable impact, the use of the cumulative approach, how housing site capacities are determined, the use of contribution zones, the system applying to windfall development and the use of illustrative maps of the contribution zone boundaries, contributions thresholds and exemptions.
  • EDUCATION - that standard cost of school infrastructure are not set out in the guidance, the inclusion of inflation and contingency, and that a delivery timetable is not provided, that the school land costs are too high and the mechanisms for land transfer are not set out by the guidance.
  • TRANSPORT - how the transport tariff based approach is calculated. the extent of the tram contribution zone, and, contributions towards major development outwith the Tram Contribution Zone.
  • AFFORDABLE HOUSING on affordable housing the use of income thresholds and the golden share purchase price. 

We Did

In response we:

  • GENERAL - Signalled that the Council sees merit that, following the adoption of the LDP and approval of the Action Programme, that the Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing Guidance be prepared as Supplementary Guidance.

We updated the guidance to:

  • APPROACH - Reflect that all development which is considered to have (a) a net impact on infrastructure, and (b) where this impact requires to be mitigated will be required to contribute to education and transport infrastructure. Provide a map of the education, transport and tram contribution zone.
  • EDUCATION - Improve the method for calculating education infrastructure to take cognisance of all potential for housing development, assesses the cumulative impact on education infrastructure, using established pupil generation factors, and identifies actions and related costs to mitigate the impact. This approach is city-wide. Set out the base cost of education infrastructure.
  • TRANSPORT - Specify, in detail, how the tariff-based approach to calculating developer contributions for transport infrastructure improvements identified within the Action Programme has been applied. 

We Asked

For views on the quality of recent new developments. 

You Said

70% of respondents felt that recent new developments had improved their neighbourhood’s appearance, and 22% felt they had not. When examined by locality, satisfaction was highest in the East (at 80%) and lowest in the City Centre & South (66%).

We Did

Reported to the Planning Committee that there continues to be a relatively high level of satisfaction with the quality of development and corresponding very low level of dissatisfaction in terms of the survey.

We Asked

For views on the quality of recent new developments. 

You Said

70% of respondents felt that recent new developments had improved their neighbourhood’s appearance, and 22% felt they had not. When examined by locality, satisfaction was highest in the East (at 80%) and lowest in the City Centre & South (66%).

We Did

Reported to the Planning Committee that there continues to be a relatively high level of satisfaction with the quality of development and corresponding very low level of dissatisfaction in terms of the survey.