Full Analysis

Summary analysis of survey responses.

A questionnaire pamphlet has been used to gather responses from the community regarding their priorities for activities to be addressed in the Parish Plan. Nine topics were outlined in the survey form and respondees were invited to identify those topics which were a “priority for me” and then to rank these (1,2,3) as “my top priorities”. Finally respondees were invited to indicate their willing ness to help develop topics through the Parish Plan process.

It is clear from analysis of responses that the form was difficult to follow. Few respondees listed all priorities in the first column and then ranked them in the second column, and this is illustrated in the table below. Therefore some care is required with interpretation of results.

The table below captures all 93 responses. These were collected originally from an AAM issue (60 forms) and a further 33 forms were collected at the Boules and Village day events. There does not appear to be any difference in emphasis or priorities from these two survey periods and therefore the combination of results is reasonable.

The upper part of the table gives raw scores from the 93 survey forms, and in the lower part these scores have been expressed as a percentage of the total 93 responses.

Combined Responses

  Community
Transport
Q1
Affordable
Housing
Q2
Energy
Plan
Q3
Youth
Centre
Q4
Traffic / Parking
Q5
Business
Space
Q6
Community
Services
Q7
Recreational
Facilities
Q8
Community
Education
Q9
PfM 31 45 54 30 56 26 16 16 24
P1 16 13 19 2 33 4 6 4 2
P2 6 14 17 8 9 10 2 7 3
P3 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 5
Help 6 2 10 4 1 2 0 4 5

Combined Responses as %ages

  Community
Transport
Q1
Affordable
Housing
Q2
Energy
Plan
Q3
Youth
Centre
Q4
Traffic / Parking
Q5
Business
Space
Q6
Community
Services
Q7
Recreational
Facilities
Q8
Community
Education
Q9
PfM 33% 48% 58% 32% 60% 28% 17% 17% 26%
P1 17% 14% 20% 2% 27% 4% 6% 4% 2%
P2 6% 15% 18% 9% 10% 11% 2% 8% 3%
P3 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 6% 5% 3% 5%
Help 6 2 10 4 1 2 0 4 5

Findings

The key findings are:

  • 60% of respondents say that traffic and parking issues are a priority issues for them
  • 58% say energy
  • 48% say affordable housing

In terms of “priority for me” (PfM)traffic and parking gained the highest score,60%, followed by energy plan, 58%, then affordable housing (48%), community transport (33%), youth centre (32%), with the remaining four topics taking smaller responses.

This order is changed marginally when the total of “my priorities” are considered. The highest score is energy plan (48%), followed by traffic and parking (44%). Beyond these the remaining topics are generally ranked as above.

In terms of “top priority” (P1), the ranking is similar, traffic and parking (27%), energy plan (20%), then affordable housing and community transport again taking third and fourth places. The remaining five topics took low scores.

Offers to help are recorded in the table. Whilst traffic and parking is a priority for action, it is not popular, with only 1 offer. However the energy plan received 10 offers. Community transport, youth centre, recreation facilities, and community education received offers of help between 4 and 6.

A number of additional topics were added to forms. These have not been analysed, although it is noted that broadband, swimming pool, dogs and litter, and midwife did recur as proposals.

Data compiled by Tony Kerr, April 2011