St Pauls & St Agnes Questionnaire 2005
The survey in question was conducted during August and September of 2005. A team of interviewers did doorstep question and answer sessions, moving from house to house with their questionnaire forms. During this period there were 667 replies given. It should be remembered that not every respondent answered every question.
Firstly, people were asked if they had heard of the St Pauls & St Agnes Neighbourhood Plan. Just over half of all respondents had heard of the plan (53%), as opposed to those who had not (47%). When the results are looked at in more detail, however, another pattern can be seen. Those who described themselves as White British were well informed, with 69% being aware of the Plan. Those who described themselves as Muslim, on the other hand, had a directly opposing level of knowledge, with 69% not knowing about the Plan. Statistically, there would appear to be issues here that need to be addressed.
If you have microsoft excel you can download the findings of the survey as a database here
The St Pauls area has been divided up into 5 zones (click here to download map, this may take time to download) for the purpose of this survey. There were a number of differences within these zones when tenure was taken into consideration. 4 distinct categories were established – a tenant of Bristol City Council (BCC), a tenant of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), a tenant renting privately, and Owner Occupiers.
Below is the overall tally for St Pauls / St Agnes as a whole:
The vast majority of residents here are tenants of a landlord, whether in the public or private sector. Only 1 in 5 own their own home in this area. This contrasts with 63% in Bristol as a whole (2001 census figures). Interestingly, for the St Pauls electoral ward as a whole, the figure given in the census of 2001 for Owner Occupiers was 51%. This suggests that the area being looked at for this survey is distinct from the immediate surrounding area.
However, within the 5 zones in the St Pauls Unlimited area there are some interesting differences. Below is a chart of the tenure with the highest concentration by zone:
Zone 1 |
RSL |
47% |
Zone 2 |
BCC |
45% |
Zone 3 |
BCC |
68% |
Zone 4 |
Own Occ |
48% |
Zone 5 |
RSL |
80% |
As you can see, even though Owner Occupiers make up just 20% of the whole area, in Zone 4 they are the ‘top tenure’, accounting for almost half of all residences in this particular zone. In fact, more than two thirds of all Owner Occupiers within the boundaries of the survey live in Zone 4.
Respondents were asked whether or not various aspects of the local area had improved, stayed the same, or deteriorated over the past 2 years. There were some interesting results, not least being that, in the main, there was a clear indication of improvement across most of the areas covered.
The Results spreadsheet (appendix B) lists all of the questions asked in this section in detail, but what follows are some of the headline figures and more interesting findings.
Nb: The co-efficient (positive or negative) in Appendix B was arrived at by determining the percentage by which either positive (improved) or negative (deteriorated) comments were in the ascendancy for each question, while also factoring into the equation the neutral comments given. A positive co-efficient indicates that there were more positive comments to negative. The difference being the co-efficient. A negative co-efficient indicates that there were more negative than positive responses.
The area which showed the biggest improvement in the eyes of the respondents was ‘the general appearance of the area’. This scored a positive co-efficient of 60%, with approx. 70% saying that this had improved over the last two years, compared to 10% who stated that it had deteriorated. 20% said that it had stayed the same.
This was followed by:
2 Community events /activities 52% positive co-efficient
3 Maintenance of parks/grass 48% “”
4 Activities for young people 37% “”
5 Tackling crime 36% “”
As mentioned, there was a general sense of improvement across most areas mentioned. There were some, however, that attracted a negative response. The issue with the biggest level of dissatisfaction was that of ‘providing older people services’, which had a negative co-efficient of 19%. This perceived deterioration was most acute in Zone 2, where there was a negative co-efficient of 45%.
This was followed by:
2 Traffic & road safety 13% negative co-efficient
3 Job opportunities 3% “”
4 Schools 10% positive co-efficient
5 Tackling anti-social behaviour 13% “”
As you can see, there were only 3 out of the 17 areas mentioned where a perception of deterioration was evident. Zone 1 had the largest number of negative responses, where 7 out of the 17 questions instigated a negative co-efficient. This contrasts with Zone 5 where all 17 areas were positive.
Even though there was this perceived improvement over most aspects of life in the area, when respondents were asked to comment on their future priorities, many of the traditional problems associated with the area were still ranked highly.
Respondents were given the opportunity to tick more than one box for this question. As you can see, the replies give a strong indication as to the problems that residents still feel need further action in their area. ‘Tackling drug dealing’ came out on top, with almost 80% of residents feeling that this problem remained a priority.
The following set of questions went on to deal with potential outcomes where housing was concerned. Here is what people said:
Improving services for owner-occupiers |
75.8% |
Having a lettings policy which gives priority to people living |
73.6% |
in St Pauls & St Agnes for some available properties |
|
Increasing the number of family houses in the area |
70.9% |
Prioritising sales of council and housing association |
68.8% |
owned homes to local residents |
|
Increasing the number of one & two bedroom flats in the area |
27.3% |
All of the percentages listed above convey a positive co-efficient.
Residents were then asked what their preferred tenure in the local area would be. The results are perhaps unsurprising:
While the percentage of actual BCC tenants in the area is fairly similar to the preferred tenure of all residents (37% vs 33.5%), there is a stark drop off for those wanting to rent either privately or from a housing association, compared to those who actually do. Further research would need to be carried out to ascertain the reasoning behind this. Over half of all those questioned aspired to be owner occupiers. This is hardly surprising, considering the perceived status of people who own their own homes.
A third of all respondents indicated that they would like to be involved further in the decision making process for the issues touched upon in the questionnaire. Below is a list of the topics that most interested them:
‘Housing’, closely followed by ‘services for young people’ came out on top. However, there were distinct variations when the tenure of the respondents was considered. For those individuals who were either owner occupiers or renting in the private sector, the issue that interested them most was ‘Arts & Culture’. As you can see, when all tenures are taken into consideration, it actually finished only 6th most popular out of 10. This indicates a very low priority among those in social housing. Again, further research would need to be undertaken to identify the reasoning behind this distinction.
For those who said that they would not want to be involved further in any consultation or decision making process, the reasons given were fairly stark.
Your life is busy enough |
53.8% |
You support the ongoing work but don't want to be actively involved |
51.3% |
You don't believe it will come to anything, so what's the point |
5.3% |
All the decisions have already been made, so what's the point |
6.3% |
It should be noted that there were very few respondents who were actively negative about the process.
Each of the 5 zones within the area has a resident representative – overall only 2 in 5 respondents knew who their representative was. Those in Zone 2 were most likely to know (48%), while only 1 in 5 (20%) of respondents in zone 5 knew their rep.
The questionnaire then went on to ask about the Usbus service – recently introduced into the area. Here is what respondents had to say about it:
As you can see, only about 1 in 15 of all respondents actually use the Usbus. Those that had heard of it, but didn’t use it, were then asked why this was the case. Here is what they said:
Those in social housing were more likely to use the Usbus than Owner Occupiers or private renters, but only just. In terms of the zones, those in zone 3 were most likely to have used the Usbus, but again percentages are low, with 9% the figure.
More than 1 in 6 of the respondents do not use the service, even though they have heard of it, because they reckon that it is ‘too complicated’. This is an is obvious area to tackle to increase participation with the scheme.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
question1: Do you wish to comment further on the issues listed:
Tackling drug dealing / use / litter
Tackling anti social behaviour / crime
Removing graffiti
General appearance of the area
Tackling rubbish
Maintenance of parks / grass
Housing repairs
Social landlord services
Community activities / events
Providing older people services
Activities for young people
Job opportunities
Schools
Traffic and road safety
Read the responses from Zone 1
Read the responses from Zone 2
Read the responses from Zone 3
Read the responses from Zone 4
Read the responses from Zone 5
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
question 2: Are there any other housing issues you do not think we have mentioned on this survey?
Read the responses from Zone 1
Read the responses from Zone 2
Read the responses from Zone 3
Read the responses from Zone 4
Read the responses from Zone 5
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
question 2: any further comments about any of the issues raised in the questionaire?
Read the responses from Zone 1
Read the responses from Zone 2
Read the responses from Zone 3
Read the responses from Zone 4
Read the responses from Zone 5