Warmington Parish Council Future Projects Village Survey

Warmington Parish Council Future Projects Village Survey

Summary of Results

1. Background

In considering future projects and as part of the decision-making process, Warmington Parish Council (WPC) sought the views of residents as to what they would like to see in the village. The aim was to gauge the level of support for projects suggested previously by residents and also during a listening event held in September 2021, which also offered an opportunity for new ideas to be submitted.

The results of the questionnaire were intended to indicate preferences and to set a project priority list.  To ensure due diligence about considerations such as planning, land licensing and funding, the most popular choices will be subject to a full project plan.  Some of the necessary decisions will be outside of Parish Council control, so it was made clear at the listening event and in the newsletter that none of the projects are guaranteed as achievable.   Any projects chosen would need to provide the greatest benefit to as many residents of Warmington, to ensure the most efficient use of public spend.

Information about five potential projects together with voting instructions was included in the Autumn / Winter Warmington village newsletter that was distributed to village households. The identity of respondents was not sought in order that preferences could be provided anonymously and results compiled without any potential for bias.

2. Response

Residents were able to indicate their choices and preferences either by using an on-line reporting form or by placing their completed form in the comments box located within the village telephone box. The paper forms were transposed to the online form to allow for collation and storage of data. The deadline for submissions was 31/12/2021.

78 completed responses were received. Although WPC are disappointed with the level of response, it is still considered to be representative. All households were provided with the opportunity to participate and those that chose not to respond are considered to have no strong views either way. Further validation of the opinions expressed has been achieved by comparing the results with the comments submitted by residents as part of the community survey completed for the Warmington Neighbourhood Plan (2018), in which comments were invited in relation to facilities offered / desired in the village (Warmington Neighbourhood Plan, Appendix 5). The similarities are highlighted later in this report.

The analysis of responses, on which this report is based, includes ALL data received. During scrutiny of the data a number of anomalies were identified but were found to have no impact on the overall results. Details of the anomalies are highlighted within the summary of results.

WPC became aware that the survey was publicised on social media (and therefore to residents outside the village), on a Facebook site related to an independent campaign to develop a pump track within the village. It is possible that this had the potential to influence results in favour of the pump track, but if this is so it has not been found to impact on the overall results.

Although 2 responses were identified as being from a non-resident, the corresponding data was included in the overall analysis as it again had no significant impact on the overall results. One of those respondents had links with the village through the school and was therefore considered valid, the other only voted only in favour of the pump track.

3. Results

Question 1: I’d like to see this Yes / No

The first question asked respondents a straightforward Yes / No as to whether they would like to see a specific project option developed within the village. Where a respondent responded Yes to some options and left remaining options blank (on paper forms), the blank spaces were taken to represent a No.

The total number of Yes’s (strongly for) for each option was calculated, as were the total number of No’s (strongly against). By subtracting the No’s from the Yes’s, an indication of the overall level of support for each of the options is shown below:

Table 1: Total number of votes for and against each option:

Table 2: Overall positive responses to each option:

Question 2: Preferences

Respondents were asked to provide an order of preference between 1 and 5 (1 being most preferred and 5 being the least) for all options. When using the on-line form a ‘score’ had to be entered against each option – on the basis that even if a respondent didn’t personally see a particular option being of benefit to themselves, it was still applicable to score on the basis of benefit to the village. Reporting using the paper form meant that some respondents only expressed a preference against the options to which they had indicated a yes and therefore some gaps were seen in the data generated. In the course of analysis these ‘blanks’ could not be populated without introducing a level of judgment and have therefore been left empty.

To analyse the order of preference, responses were ‘weighted’; assigning a first-place preference score of 5 down to a fifth-place preference score of 1. That means that the higher the score the more popular the option. Results are shown below.

 Table 3: Weighted preference order

Table 4: Total number of responses – Order of Preference by option (showing top and bottom placement by %)

 Analysis of the above results can identify some ‘top line’ conclusions:

• The Heritage Trail has showed the highest percentage of scores within the top 3 preferences (77.4%) so is therefore the most popular option.
• The Petanque / Boules pitch showed the lowest percentage of scores within the top 3 preferences (41.4%) meaning it is the least popular option. This is supported by the fact that 58.6% placed it the last 2 preferences, i.e. more people didn’t want it than did.

As previously highlighted in the report, a number of anomalies were identified within the data and are shown below:

• Line 10: Pump Track answer to Question 1 stated as ‘Yes’ while all other options were ‘No’, yet for Question 2 the pump track was included against all preferences 1 – 5. Logic would suggest that the pump track could remain as preference 1 but removed from preferences 2 – 5.
• Line 49 & 73: A ‘Yes’ was entered against all options in Question 1 except the pump track, and preferences were shown 1 – 4. Logic would suggest that the pump track could be added to preference 5
• Line 65: Question 1 response from non-resident was ‘No’ to all options except the pump track but on Question 2, pump track added as preferences 1 – 5. It could be suggested that these response should be removed from the analysis

In order to establish the impact of these anomalies the data was analysed a second time with the logic shown above applied. The results showed no difference in the overall order of preference; what it did impact on was the total weighted score for each option. The difference in results is shown below:

Table 5: Comparison of Weighted preference order

 As stated previously, removal of the anomalies does not impact on the overall results and therefore analysis has been based on, and conclusions drawn from, all the data received.

4. Summary of Results and Comparisons

Whether measuring the overall positive response to each of the five suggested projects or the weighted preferences achieved by each, the overall position of each option (1 being the most preferred and 5 being the least) is the same.

The data from the previously mentioned Warmington Neighbourhood Plan community survey cannot be analysed in the same detail as this most recent survey, but it does provide some indication as to what residents at the time wished to see in terms of recreational facilities.

• Provide a shelter
• Encourage group activities / communal facilities / provision for family gatherings & community ‘inclusive’ activities / outdoor theatre & concerts
• Facilities for older children and adults
• Of the comments relating to specific equipment and that coincide with recent suggested options 31% were in favour of an outdoor gym, 9% a skateboard park and 4% a flat area for bowls / boule / croquet.

When submitting their responses on the current survey, comments could be added if wished. Only 26 respondents chose to add comments but these are nonetheless appreciated and a useful indication of individual points of view. As would be expected, some of the comments are made in support of chosen options while others provided guidance to WPC as part of the decision-making process such as cost / funding, target age groups and that priority being given to use by residents of Warmington. Some comments relate to other activities that the respondent would like to see in the village such as a car park, a bus service and cricket nets.

5. Conclusion

As stated on the newsletter, and within this report, the Parish Council sought the views of residents as to what projects they would like to see developed in the village. None of the options are guaranteed as achievable as some of the necessary decisions will be outside of Parish Council control. The responses have been thoroughly analysed and provide a clear indication as to preferences. Based on the results, the Parish Council will start to investigate the feasibility of options 2 and 3 i.e. the covered pavilion and an outdoor gym. The heritage trail has been popular for some time with a lot of background work already undertaken; we are therefore confident that any issues can be successfully mitigated, so this project will proceed imminently.

You can download a copy of the above report HERE: WPC_Docs/Projects/2201_Future_Projects__-_analysis_conclusions_Jan_22_sec.pdf

You can access the data HERE: http://warmpc.com/17Jan22a

• Prev
• Next