Oxford City TalkBack Panel Spring 2011 FINDINGS REPORT · OXFORD TALKBACK SURVEY – SPRING 2011 M·E·L RESEARCH 1) Project details Title Oxford City TalkBack Survey Report Client

OXFORD TALKBACK SURVEY – SPRING 2011 M·E·L RESEARCH

Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to
Oxford City TalkBackPanel
Spring 2011

FINDINGS REPORT

shape better services


Contents Page

1) Project details....................................................................................................... 1

2) Introduction........................................................................................................... 2

Background..........................................................................................................................2

Response..............................................................................................................................2

Statistical reliability and reporting conventions .............................................................2

3) Findings................................................................................................................. 4

Oxford City Centre...............................................................................................................4

Housing in Oxford .............................................................................................................23

4) Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................... 44

Oxford City Centre.............................................................................................................44

Housing in Oxford .............................................................................................................45

Appendix A: Sample composition............................................................................ 46

Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services


1) Project details

Title Oxford City TalkBack Survey Report

Client Oxford City Council

Project number 10036 Spring 2011

Client contact Margaret Melling

Authors Elizabeth Sanderson, Dave Ruston

Contract Manager Dave Ruston

M·E·L Research 8 Holt Court Aston Science Park Birmingham B7 4AX

Tel: 0121 604 4664 Fax: 0121 604 6776 Email: [email protected] Web: www.m-e-l.co.uk

Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 1

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.m-e-l.co.uk/


2) Introduction

Background

This is the third Oxford City Council Talkback Survey carried out with assistance from M·E·L Research.

Oxford City designed and provided the Spring 2011 survey questionnaire. M·E·L Research were

responsible for mailing out, receiving responses via freepost, processing completed questionnaires and

data analysis. An online version of the survey was also programmed and hosted by M·E·L Research.

The current panel contains 950 members. A total of 662 panelists receive the questionnaire through the

post and 321 request an electronic version which can be completed via a web survey. A small number of

panelists ask to be sent both options. Fieldwork was conducted 24th March – 15th April 2011. A newsletter

giving feedback on panel activities was also sent out during fieldwork which would have also acted as a

reminder.

Response

A total number of 439 surveys were completed, 116 were completed online and 323 were completed and

returned in the post. There were 5 requests to be removed from the database (moved out of area,

deceased, or no longer wants to participate).

This represents a total response rate of 46%. This is higher than the response rate achieved in Winter

2010/11 (41%). A breakdown of the achieved sample is provided in Appendix A.

In many cases the base size being reported on will be smaller than the total number of questionnaires

received. This will be because some panellists choose not to answer particular questions (missing data).

Statistical reliability and reporting conventions

With the overall number of households in Oxford of over 50,000, the results contained in this report are

accurate to +/-5 at 95% confidence, which is statistically fairly robust. This means that we can be 95%

certain that the results are +/-5% of the calculated response, so results could either be 5% above or below

the figure calculated i.e. a 50% satisfaction response could in reality lie within the range of 45% to 55%.

In order to satisfy requirements to examine any perceived differences in service delivery according to

diversity sub-groups, we have provided detailed break downs of different customer types. Where sub-

sample differences have been explored for reasons of generating insight, such as gender or ethnicity, the

reader should use the appropriate caution in interpreting these results - conclusions based on small bases;

fewer than 50 surveys unweighted) are generally regarded as being potentially problematic.



The reader should also take note of whether ‘don’t know’ responses have been included in the base for

each question reported upon. This can have a large difference when examining ‘satisfaction’ or

‘importance’ scale questions. This report presents the overall findings for all panelist questionnaires

received via Talkback and all data are unweighted.



3) Findings

Oxford City Centre

The following set of questions looked to gather the views of respondents about Oxford city centre and the

facilities that the Council and their partners provide. Similar questions to these were also asked on the

panel in early 2010 (managed by a different contractor).

Using the city centre

The city centre is used for a wide variety of purposes. The most common reason for visiting the city centre

is for shopping during the day. Over two fifths (42%) stated that they used the city centre for this purpose at

least once a week, whilst just 2% said they never visit the centre for this reason. Whilst one half (50%) of

respondents do not use the city centre during the day for work, over one quarter (28%) said that they do

use the centre for this purpose at least once a week.

The pattern of leisure consumption in daytime and evening appears to be very similar. 28% told us they

were regular (at least weekly) users of the city centre in the daytime for leisure. Slightly fewer (21%) of

respondents told us that they were regular users of the Oxford Night Time Economy (NTE) but in both

cases 5% said that it ‘varies a lot’ and 8% said that they never use the city centre for this activity.

The least common purpose was for study during the day. Nearly two thirds (65%) stated that they never

use the city centre for this purpose.

Fig 1 Reasons for and frequency of city centre use (Q1)

4

3

4

18

7

8

19

23

11

34

7

29

31

8

35

10

32

24

9

16

4

5

4

2

1

2

5

5

4

65

8

8

50

2

3

During the day for study

In the evening (after6pm)

During the day for leisure

During the day for work

During the day to shop

% More than 4 times a week % 1-3 times a week % Once or twice a month % A few times a year % Less than once a year % Varies a lot% Never



Table 1 Reasons for using the city centre – top three uses (Q1) Percentage of respondents stating that they use the city centre for each reason at least once a week (Q1)

Percent During the day to shop

During the day for leisure

In the evening (after 6pm) Min Base:

17-34 years 35 25 40 28

35-54 years 37 24 18 119

55+ 46 31 21 184

Male 40 30 27 145

Female 42 26 18 199

Disabled 27 20 4 25

Non-disabled 42 28 21 271

White 40 26 21 318

Non-white 46 38 20 20

In employment 36 20 20 186

Not in employment 48 37 24 147

Central 77 44 55 50

North 43 26 18 72

East 52 31 26 36

North East 36 29 15 88

South East 23 20 10 51

Cowley 21 15 9 40

Non-disabled respondents are significantly more likely to use the city centre to shop during the day at least

once a week than disabled respondents (42% compared with 27%) as are those living in the Central area

compared with most other committee areas (77% compared with 21% in Cowley, the lowest percentage

across all committee areas).

Respondents not in employment are more likely to use the city centre during the day for leisure more than

once a week than employed respondents (37% compared with 20%) as again are those living in the Central

area compared with most other areas (44% compared with just 15% in Cowley).

The youngest respondents aged 17-34 are most likely to use the city centre in the evening at least once a

week (40% compared with 21% of those aged 55+ and 18% 35-54 year olds). Non-disabled respondents

are also more likely to use the city centre for this purpose at least once a week than disabled respondents

(21% compared with 4%), while those living in the Central are again also more likely than any other

committee area (55% compared with just 9% in Cowley).



The next question asked respondents about the city centre facilities that they use and how often they do so.

Shops were the facilities used most frequently, which ties in with the previous finding that shopping is the

most common city centre activity. Almost one third (32%) of respondents stated that they use food shops at

least once a week, whilst 17% said they use non-food shops with the same frequency. Over two fifths

(43%) also said they use non-food shops once or twice a month. The ice rink is the facility respondents

indicated they use least often, with 77% stating that they never use this facility.

Fig 2 Frequency of use of city centre facilities (Q2)

1

1

1

2

4

2

5

1

2

3

7

8

7

7

16

27

1

10

7

17

15

26

19

20

18

43

26

5

53

32

34

50

46

26

30

27

29

26

15

21

5

19

16

6

15

13

14

2

4

4

3

5

6

3

7

3

5

5

77

12

52

24

10

8

28

20

26

4

8

2

4

Ice rink

Theatre(s)

Health services (eg Doctor, dentist)

Cinema(s)

Museums / tours

Restaurants

Pubs / bars / clubs

L

eisure centre(s) / parks

Library

Non-food shops

Food shops

% More than 4 times a week % 1-3 times a week % Once or twice a month % A few times a year % Less than once a year % Varies a lot% Never



Main method of transport to the city centre

Respondents were then asked about the main modes of transport they use to travel into the city centre.

Respondents could select more than one method of transport if applicable. Bus or coach was the transport

mode cited most frequently, with over one half (56%) stating that they use this method to travel to the city

centre in the day and 48% saying they use this method in the evening. Bicycle was the second most

popular form of transport respondents used in the day time (32%). Private vehicle as a modal choice is

more popular in the evening in contrast to the daytime (24% and 15% respectively) – this pattern is also

true for taxis.

Fig 3 Main method of transport used to travel to the city centre (Q3)

11%

24%

18%

23%

48%

3%

15%

27%

32%

56%

Taxi

Private vehicle(car/van/motorcycle)

On foot

Bicycle

Bus/coach

In the day timeIn the evening



Table 2 Main method of transport used to travel to the city centre by demographics (Q3)

Percent Bus/coach (in the daytime)

Bus/coach (in the evening) Min Base:

17-34 years 47 41 29

35-54 years 38 39 130

55+ 66 54 188

Male 55 48 150

Female 56 49 205

Disabled 56 38 24

Non-disabled 53 48 281

White 56 48 332

Non-white 52 42 19

In employment 45 42 210

Not in employment 67 55 138

Central 31 29 56

North 52 41 80

East 52 54 39

North East 59 49 86

South East 74 69 55

Cowley 64 55 40

Respondents aged 55+ are significantly more likely to use bus or coach to travel to the city centre in the day

than younger respondents (66% compared with 47% of those aged 17-34 and 38% aged 35-54).

Respondents not in employment are also more likely to use this method of transport in the day (67%

compared with 45% of employed respondents). Those living in the South East are significantly more likely

than respondents in most other committee areas to use the bus/coach in the day (74%) whilst those living in

the Central area are least likely (31%).

In the evening the pattern is the same with older respondents, those not in employment and those living in

the South East more likely to say the main method of transport they use is bus or coach. Percentages

using the bus or coach in the evening are generally lower than in the day across the board.



Importance and satisfaction with aspects of the city centre

Respondents were asked to think about the different aspects they feel are important to making their visit to

Oxford city centre an enjoyable experience. They were provided with a list of 18 aspects and asked to rate

how important they felt each to be. They were then asked to refer to the same list again and rate their

satisfaction with each element.

Fig 4 below displays the aspects ranked as being the most important. Importance and satisfaction are both

correspondingly high for ‘a safe and secure city centre’ and ‘ease of walking’ suggesting a high level of

endorsement from respondents. Overall satisfaction is generally lower than importance for each aspect

though, with the lowest levels of satisfaction found for well maintained pavements (69%), maintenance of

roads (53%) and having a good variety of shops (50%).

Fig 4 Aspects ranked as most important (Q4) and level of satisfaction (Q5) Percentage of respondents stating

either ‘very important’ or ‘important’; Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q4); Percentage of respondents stating either

‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied; Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q5)

53%

77%

90%

81%

50%

69%

86%

78%

85%

83%

85%

86%

87%

90%

91%

92%

95%

98%

Maintenance of roads

Quality of restaurants, barsand/or cafes

Good quality museums andcultural attractions

A good public transportnetwork

A good variety of shops

Well maintainedpavements

Ease of walking

A clean and tidyenvironment

A safe and secure citycentre

ImportantSatisfied



Fig 5 below shows the aspects respondents told us were of lower importance. Sufficient car parking (52%)

and ease of car travel (41%) were seen as least important aspects in the city centre overall.

Correspondingly these two aspects also received a low percentage of respondents stating that they

satisfied with them (37% and 39% respectively). However, good quality public toilets received the lowest

satisfaction rating (25%) with 76% seeing this aspect as important.

Fig 5 Aspects ranked as least important (Q4) and level of satisfaction (Q5) Percentage of respondents stating

either ‘very important’ or ‘important’; Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q4); Percentage of respondents stating either

‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied; Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q5)

39%

37%

86%

52%

72%

74%

25%

72%

85%

41%

52%

65%

66%

74%

74%

76%

76%

77%

Ease of car travel

Sufficient car parking

Being able to find your way around the city centreeasily

Ease of bike travel

Good quality events and markets

Pedestrianised streets

Good quality public toilets

Green space

Appearance of buildings

ImportantSatisfied

Respondents were also invited to indicate if they thought there were any other aspects which they felt are

important in making their visit to the city centre enjoyable (an open-ended question). Of the comments

received the majority of respondents, rather than suggesting other aspects, used the opportunity to mention

how they thought the city centre could be improved in relation to the aspects already listed.



Fig. 6 below cross references ‘important’ against ‘satisfaction’ in the form of a quadrant map. The top left

hand quadrant should be of highest priority for the authority because aspects falling into this area are

perceived as important in making the city centre enjoyable yet perform relatively weaker in terms of

satisfaction. Three factors fall into this quadrant: good quality public toilets, maintenance of roads and a

good variety of shops. These results confirm the results illustrated in the previous two charts. Conversely,

the results also suggest that the authority is currently over-performing on ‘being able to find your way

around the city centre easily’ because satisfaction was higher than average on this measure but of relatively

little importance to respondents.

Fig 6 Importance of aspect vs. satisfaction (Q4 & Q5) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘very important’ or

‘important’; Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q4); Percentage of respondents stating either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied;

Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q5)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

A safe and secure city centre

Ease of walking

Museums and cultural attractions


Being able to find way around Events and markets

Green space Restaurants,

bars, cafes Public transport network

Clean and tidy environment

Well maintained pavements

Pedestrianised streets

Higher importance

Variety of shops

Road maintenance Public toilets

Ease of bike travel


Ease of car travel

Lower importance

Lower satisfaction

Higher satisfaction



Table 3 Satisfaction with aspects seen as important by respondents but receiving lower ratings of satisfaction by demographics (Q5) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied; Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q5)

Percent Good quality public toilets


Good variety of shops Min Base:

17-34 years 30 55 61 29

35-54 years 24 51 47 135

55+ 26 53 50 233

Male 26 52 52 169

Female 25 53 50 240

Disabled 34 56 61 32


White 27 52 50 376

Non-white 15 52 63 26



Central 18 42 63 60

North 31 60 42 85

East 44 63 59 41

North East 23 45 52 109


Cowley 20 55 50 49

Respondents living in the East committee area are more likely than those living in most other locations to be

satisfied with the quality of public toilets (44% compared with just 18% in the Central area).

Those living in the Central area are more likely than respondents in most other areas to be satisfied with the

variety of shops (63%).



Fig. 7 below shows the change in importance and satisfaction with each aspect from the previous survey in

2010. Encouragingly across most aspects there has been an in uplift in satisfaction, most noticeably with

ease of car travel (11%pts) and car parking (10%pts). These aspects however are the two aspects

residents stated to be of least importance to them. Satisfaction with the maintenance of roads however, an

aspect seen as important by residents but receiving a lower satisfaction rating, has risen by 9%pts. Only

two aspects witnessed a decrease in satisfaction. Satisfaction with quality events and markets fell by 2%pts

although importance also dropped by 3%pts. Satisfaction with public toilets, an aspect residents perceive as

important but are less satisfied with, has fallen by 3%pts whilst importance has risen, re-iterating the

message displayed in the previous chart that this should be a high priority for the local authority.

Fig 7 Change in importance and satisfaction of aspects since previous survey (Q4 & Q5) Difference in

percentage points of respondents stating either ‘very important’ or ‘important’ since the previous survey (2010); Includes ‘Don’t know’ and

‘Not applicable’ responses (Q4); Difference in percentage points of respondents stating either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied since the previous

survey (2010); Includes ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Not applicable’ responses (Q5)

-2

8

Q

A clean and tidy environment

-2

6

1

0

2

8

1

3

uali

Green space


A safe and secure city centre

Mea

A good variety of shops

8

5

1

3

0

1

0

0

-1

9

10

2

5

11

4

0



Ease of walking

Ease of bike travel

Ease of car travel

A good public transport network

ty of restaurants, bars and/or cafes

Being able to find your way around the city centre easily

2-3
Good quality public toilets
-3-2

Good quality events and markets

surement Evaluation Lea

Negative / Positive (%pts)

rning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 13


Cleanliness of the city centre

When asked how they would rate the cleanliness of streets and public squares within the city centre, almost

four fifths (79%) rated them clean overall with the most popular response being ‘fairly clean’ (72%). This is

an increase since the previous year when 75% gave clean as a response overall. Almost one fifth (19%)

gave unclean as response.

Fig 8 Rating of the overall cleanliness of streets and public squares within the city centre (Q6) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q6)

1%

5%

19%

67%

7%

2%

3%

15%

72%

8%

Don't know

Very unclean

Fairly unclean

Fairly clean

Very clean

20112010

Total clean: 2011: 79% 2010: 75%



Table 4 Rating of the overall cleanliness of streets and public squares within the city centre by demographics (Q6) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ clean; Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q6)

Percent Clean Overall Base:

17-34 years 77 31

35-54 years 80 137

55+ 79 239

Male 82 172

Female 77 246

Disabled 70 37

Non-disabled 79 316

White 79 389

Non-white 72 25

In employment 81 218

Not in employment 76 191

Central 77 61

North 79 91

East 79 43

North East 78 111

South East 80 65

Cowley 82 49

There are no significant differences in the percentages of respondents rating the city centre as clean

overall.



Other towns and cities visited

Respondents were asked which towns and cities other than Oxford they visit fairly regularly (once every two

or three months or more) and why they visit. London was by far the most popular location, with leisure

(58%) the most common reason for visiting, followed by non-food shopping (22%) and for work (18%).

Around one quarter (24%) said they don’t visit London, a much lower figure than across any other town or

city listed. Reading was the next most popular location, followed by High Wycombe and Milton Keynes.

Newbury was least popular, with nine out of ten (90%) respondents saying they don’t visit.

Fig 9 Towns and cities visited fairly regularly and why (Q7)

4

1

1

1

1

2

4

2

1

4

18

3

1

1

1

1

5

25

2

9

7

1

3

5

16

15

24

22

14

2

1

2

3

1

3

32

4

5

8

14

17

14

8

7

11

58

45

90

86

84

84

80

78

76

76

64

24

-5 15 35 55 75 95 115 135

Other

Newbury

Swindon

Cheltenham

Bristol

Bath

Bi

rmingham

Milton Keynes

High Wycombe

Reading

London

% For work % For study % For non-food shopping % For food shopping % For leisure % Don't visit

Respondents were also given the opportunity to state any other towns or cities they visit frequently and for

what reason. The most common locations named were:

♦ Witney (n=14)

♦ Banbury (n=10)

♦ Bicester (n=6)

♦ Abingdon (n=4)

♦ Cambridge (n=4)

♦ Didcot (n=4)

The most common reason for visiting these towns and cities was for leisure purposes (32%) followed by for

non-food shopping (25%).



Encouraging city centre use

When asked what would encourage them to make more use of Oxford city centre, almost three-quarters

(74%) agreed if ‘there was a wider range of shops available’, with 41% stating that they ‘strongly’ agreed

with this. Diversification of shopping choice was the statement most agreed with. Over one half (54%) also

agreed that they would be encouraged to use the city centre more if ‘there was a wider range of events and

markets’, the second most popular statement. If ‘there was more choice of evening entertainment’ was the

statement respondents least agreed with overall (23%). One third (32%) gave neither as a response and

one quarter (25%) said don’t know/no opinion.

Fig 10 Factors which would encourage respondents to make more use of Oxford city centre (Q8) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q8)

8

12

11

20

13

19

41

15

20

23

17

26

35

33

32

38

39

26

40

28

13

13

13

10

12

8

6

6

6

7

8

11

4

4

2

25

9

10

14

9

8

6

There was more choice of evening entertainment

I felt safer

There were improvements to public transport

There were improvements to parking

The environment was cleaner and tidier

There was a wider range of events and markets

There was a wider range of shops

% Strongly agree % Tend to agree % Tend to disagree % Strongly disagree % Don't know/no opinion

Respondents who stated that they would be encouraged to make more use of Oxford city centre if there

was more choice of evening entertainment were asked to expand on what forms of entertainment they had

in mind. A variety of comments were received. The key responses were:

♦ Better quality/ cheaper theatre or opera (n=12)

♦ A new concert hall (n=11)

♦ Concerts (n=7)



Table 5 Factors which would encourage respondents to make more use of Oxford city centre - top 2 most agreed with statements by demographics (Q8) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘strongly’ or ‘tend to’

agree; Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q8)

Percent Wider range of shops

Wider range of events and

markets Min Base:

17-34 years 71 65 31

35-54 years 77 51 131

55+ 73 53 216

Male 69 48 163

Female 76 57 226

Disabled 65 55 33


White 73 53 359

Non-white 71 67 24



Central 65 47 57

North 72 46 82

East 64 44 39

North East 73 54 108

South East 83 63 59

Cowley 83 71 45

Female respondents are more likely to agree that they would be encouraged to use the city centre more if

there was a wider range of shops than male respondents (76% compared with 69%). Employed

respondents are also more likely to be encouraged (78% compared with 70% of those not employed) as

are those living in the South East compared with most other committee areas (63% compared with 44% in

the East, the lowest percentage across areas).

Female respondents are also more likely to be encouraged to use the city centre if there was a wider range

of events and markets (57% compared with 48% of male respondents). Respondents in the Cowley area

are most likely to be encouraged by this factor across areas (71%).



Overall satisfaction with the city centre

Eight out of ten (80%) respondents said they are satisfied overall with Oxford city centre, with 73% giving

‘fairly’ satisfied as a response. This is a slight increase since the previous survey (77%) although the overall

distribution of satisfaction with the city centre remains very similar. Almost one fifth (19%) remain

unsatisfied.

Fig 11 Satisfaction overall with Oxford city centre (Q9) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q9)

1%

3%

18%

71%

6%

1%

3%

16%

73%

7%

Don't know

Very dissatisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Fairly satisfied

Very satisfied

20112010

Total satisfied: 2011: 80% 2010: 77%



Table 6 Satisfaction overall with Oxford city centre by demographics (Q9) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied; Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q9)

Percent Satisfied Overall Base:

17-34 years 87 31

35-54 years 76 135

55+ 80 246

Male 78 174

Female 81 248

Disabled 58 36

Non-disabled 81 321

White 79 390

Non-white 81 27



Central 83 60

North 82 92

East 86 42

North East 75 114

South East 76 66

Cowley 82 50

Non-disabled respondents are more likely to be satisfied overall than disabled (81% compared with 58%).



The best thing about Oxford city centre

Respondents were asked to say in a short phrase or sentence what they think is the best thing about

Oxford city centre. The main themes to emerge from this open question were:

♦ Attractive and historic buildings (n=107)

♦ Compact centre (n=55)

♦ Museums (n=46)

♦ The covered market (n=36)

♦ Culture and cultural events (n=31)

♦ Shops (n=30)

♦ Restaurants/cafes/bars (n=17)

♦ Transport links (n=14)

♦ Pedestrianised areas (n=12)

♦ Libraries (n=7)

Tag cloud 1 The best thing about Oxford city centre (Q10)



The following verbatim quotations are offered by way of illustration for the findings of this question:

“Beautiful architecture, everything's within easy walking distance, amazing choice of cultural

activities and if you go out to Jerico or Cowley Rd there are excellent bars and restaurants”

“Beautiful buildings, farmers market, covered market and it's shops and restaurants and

cafes”

“The covered market is a jewel in Oxford's crown”

“Contained within a reasonably small area is everything needed from shopping to eating to

entertainment”

“In a very compact space (easily walkable/cyclable), there is a high concentration of cultural

highlights, shops and restaurants/cafes”

“Its beauty, buzz for activity and variety of cultural events and relaxing parks”

“Oxford manages to combine a sense of history and it's University with the needs of all its

citizens - providing shops, entertainment and relaxation while remaining a beautiful city”

“The Ashmolean Museum and green spaces together with access to cultural events as we

are a University town”



Housing in Oxford

The following set of questions looked to gather the views of respondents on the objectives in the current

Housing Strategy for Oxford.

Importance of housing issues

Firstly, respondents were asked how important they thought a series of housing issues are in Oxford.

Results are displayed below in Fig. 11. They were then asked to pick their top three issues which are

discussed on the following page.

Fig 12 Importance of housing issues (Q1) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q1)

29

43

48

5

19

15

26

48

53

7

10

22

35

29

45

27

26

33

12

15

22

25

32

32

15

18

31

29

39

35

12

8

8

29

22

23

17

7

6

27

24

14

7

10

5

13

3

4

19

13

9

7

3

2

15

13

7

3

5

3

18

20

8

35

31

31

26

10

7

36

35

25

25

17

13

Lack of suitable land in the city to build on

Family homelessness

Street homelessness and rough sleeping

Too many houses

Too many flats

Not enough flats

Not enough houses

High rental levels

High house prices

Too much affordable rented housing

Too much shared ownership housing

Lack of shared ownership housing for families

Long waiting lists for affordable housing

Lack of affordable rented housing for singles or couples

Lack of affordable housing for families

% Very important % Important % Not very important % Not at all important % Don't know



When asked for their top three issues, over one half (55%) mentioned lack of affordable housing for

families. This was closely followed by high house prices (52%). Other issues received less of a response

although 28% also mentioned high rental levels amongst their top three issues. Too many houses received

the lowest percentage (4%), with few respondents placing this in their top three.

Fig 13 Housing issues mentioned amongst respondents’ top 3 most important (Q1) Any mention of the

issue across the top 3 most stated as important as a percentage of all those completing this question (Q1)

4%

5%

7%

9%

10%

10%

11%

13%

14%

22%

24%

25%

28%

52%

55%

Too many houses

Too much affordable rented housing

Not enough flats

Too many flats

Too much shared ownership housing

Lack of suitable land in the city to build on

Lack of shared ownership housing for families

Family homelessness

Not enough houses

Long waiting lists for affordable housing

Street homelessness and rough sleeping

Lack of affordable rented housing for singles or couples

High rental levels

High house prices

Lack of affordable housing for families



Table 7 Housing issues mentioned amongst respondents’ top 3 most important – top two issues ranked as important by demographics (Q1) Any mention of the issue across the top 3 most stated as important as a

percentage of all those completing this question (Q1)

Percent Lack of affordable housing for families High house prices Base:

17-34 years 47 70 30

35-54 years 55 42 91

55+ 58 55 159

Male 56 53 115

Female 56 52 163

Disabled 53 42 19


White 56 52 257

Non-white 50 50 16



Central 60 51 43

North 63 54 59

East 53 47 36

North East 52 58 69

South East 54 52 46

Cowley 48 41 27

Respondents aged 35-54 years are significantly less likely to see high house prices as a top 3 issue (42%

compared with 55% of those aged 55+ and 70% of 17-34 year olds).



Respondents were also asked if there were any other housing issues in Oxford that had not already been

listed. A range of comments were received, with problems with derelict houses, building on green spaces,

houses of multiple occupation and the expansion of student housing all issues raised by respondents.

The following verbatim quotations are offered by way of illustration for the findings of this question:

“Too many multi occupancy houses causing trouble in neighbourhoods”

“Since Brooks has been built there are too many student houses - no family homes left -

communities broken up disappearing because no family homes and permanent respondents.

Also colleges grabbing every bit of land for students housing leaving no land for respondents

or social housing building”

“Student housing is crippling other people’s needs”

“Oxford should stop all development on green land in and around the city, and focus on

redeveloping run down areas”

“Derelict and empty houses which could be done up for occupation”

“Too many unregulated HMO's. Total lack of exterior and interior upkeep”

“Empty houses should be repaired and put into use”



New housing

Respondents were asked what type of new housing they thought is needed in Oxford and where this

housing should be – this was a multi code question so more than one answer could be selected. Almost

three fifths (57%) said that more family sized homes of 3 and 4 bedrooms are needed whilst two fifths

(41%) felt there is a need for more smaller homes. Family sized flats received less of a response with one

fifth (20%) stating that more of this type of housing is required.

Just over one half (51%) think that more new homes away from Oxford and in surround towns are

necessary whilst endorsement for new homes in or immediately around Oxford is slightly lower (43%).

Fig 14 Types of new housing needed in Oxford and where (Q2)

43%

51%

20%

41%

57%

More new homes in orimmediately around

Oxford

More new homes awayfrom Oxford and insurrounding towns

More family sized flats (3and 4 bedrooms)

More smaller homes

More family sized homes(3 and 4 bedrooms)



Table 8 Types of new housing needed in Oxford and where - top type and location respondents think are needed by demographics (Q2)

Percent More family sized homes (3 and 4

bedrooms)

More new homes away from Oxford

and in surrounding towns

Base:

17-34 years 64 36 25

35-54 years 58 50 121

55+ 56 54 224

Male 57 45 150

Female 57 55 216

Disabled 71 62 34


White 57 50 337

Non-white 56 56 25



Central 50 41 46

North 57 52 79

East 58 53 36

North East 59 51 102

South East 62 58 60

Cowley 53 49 45

Disabled respondents are more likely to think more family sized homes are needed (71% compared with

53% of non-disabled respondents).

Female respondents are more likely to think more new homes away from Oxford and in surrounding towns

are needed (55% compared with 45% of male respondents). Those aged 55+ are also more likely to think

homes are needed here than the youngest age group (54% compared with 36%). Respondents in the

South East are also more likely than those in the Central are to think homes should be situated in this

location (58% in comparison to 41%).



When respondents were asked if there are any other new housing types needed in Oxford that had not

been listed, the key responses that emerged were that there should be no more housing or that existing

housing should be redeveloped rather than new housing being built or if building is to take place it should

be on brown field sites. Comments received included:

“I think Oxford should focus on redeveloping existing run down areas of the city rather than

building 'new' housing. If there is any new housing I think it should be on brown land or on

redeveloped land and NOT on green land or green spaces”

“Rather then building new homes, old properties should be maintained and re-allocated”

“I don't think that new housing is the answer, unless it replaces slums”

“I think we should develop the housing stock that already exists. Oxford is a really nice sized

city which is walkable. We need to be wary of overdevelopment eroding the qualities that the

comparative compactness of Oxford brings. I don't think Oxford needs new housing. There's

plenty of new housing. If it is not affordable, that's a separate issue”

“Use brown field sites to develop more affordable housing”

Respondents also used this question as an opportunity to reiterate the housing issues mentioned in the

previous question, particularly problems with student housing, affordability and an excess of flats. Some

respondents did however suggest some different types of housing they felt are needed:

“More single flats for young adults”

“Homes for single people should be as much a priority as for other families”

“Need for more council houses and flats”

“Purpose built flats for single parents”



Affordable housing provision

Just one fifth (19%) of respondents rated the Council’s performance on the provision of affordable housing

in Oxford as fairly good or better. 28% rated Council performance as poor. The most common response

however was don’t know (41%) suggesting that there is low awareness amongst the general public on

activity in this policy area.

Fig 15 Rating of the Council’s performance on the provision of affordable housing in Oxford (Q3) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q3)

41%

7%

21%

13%

15%

3%

1%

Don't know

Very poor

Fairly poor

Neither good nor poor

Fairly good

Very good

Excellent

Total positive: 19%



Table 9 Rating of the Council’s performance on the provision of affordable housing in Oxford (Q3) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘excellent’ ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’; Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q3)

Percent Positive Rating Overall Base:

17-34 years 13 30

35-54 years 15 136

55+ 22 243

Male 22 166

Female 17 240

Disabled 31 35

Non-disabled 17 321

White 18 376

Non-white 24 25



Central 9 55

North 22 88

East 19 43

North East 13 111

South East 33 63

Cowley 19 48

Respondents aged 55+ are more likely to give a positive rating than those aged 35-54 (22% compared with

15%). Respondents in the South East are also more likely than respondents in some other committee

areas to give a positive rating (33% compared with 13% in the North East).



Respondents were asked to explain why they had given the rating they had given when asked to rate the

Council’s performance on the provision of affordable housing. On the whole the comments received either

stated how respondents felt they were unable to comment as they did not have enough knowledge on the

issue or were negative about the Council’s performance. Negative comments focused on the high house

prices and rental levels in Oxford and long waiting lists for council properties. Comments included:

“House prices and rents are very high - one of the most expensive places in UK to live”

“There never seems to be enough affordable housing, and there is not enough pressure from

the council on builders to supply it”

“Because there are still lots of homeless people un-housed and there are many professional

people who cannot live affordably except in expensive rented accommodation within the ring

road i.e. there is no affordable housing for young couples or for families on lower incomes to

buy in reasonable areas within the city”

“Because house prices in Oxford are absurdly high”

“I know families who have been on the waiting list for years and have had to move away from

the area”

“Long waiting list and poor application process”

“The waiting list for council houses is enormous and presumably the council tax payers have

to fund accommodation whilst they wait for a house”

There were some respondents however who felt more positive about the Council’s performance as

illustrated by the comments below:

“A reasonable performance given the attraction of Oxford to many newcomers”

“City makes efforts to reduce waiting lists, provide affordable housing in new developments”

“I think the city council does the best it can, but is hamstrung by lack of support from central

government and from neighbouring authorities.”

“Plenty of council / housing association properties”



Preventing homelessness

One quarter (25%) of respondents rated the Council’s performance on preventing homelessness in Oxford

as fairly good or better. Fewer (18%) gave poor as a response, however over two fifths (45%) stated don’t

know.

Fig 16 Rating of the Council’s performance on preventing homelessness in Oxford (Q4) Includes ‘Don’t

know’ responses (Q4)

45%

4%

14%

11%

21%

4%

Don't know

Very poor

Fairly poor

Neither good nor poor

Fairly good

Very good

Excellent

Total positive: 25%



Table 10 Rating of the Council’s performance on preventing homelessness in Oxford (Q4) Percentage

of respondents stating either ‘excellent’ ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’; Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q4)

Percent Positive Rating Overall Base:

17-34 years 23 31

35-54 years 22 134

55+ 27 244

Male 27 165

Female 23 240

Disabled 25 36

Non-disabled 26 320

White 23 375

Non-white 46 26



Central 25 55

North 16 91

East 24 42

North East 26 111

South East 35 62

Cowley 24 46

Non-white respondents are more likely to give a positive rating than white (46% compared with 33%).

Respondents in the South East are also more likely than those in the North (35% compared with 16%).



Respondents were also asked to explain why they had given the rating they had given when asked to rate

the Council’s performance on preventing homelessness in Oxford. Again many responses focused on how

respondents felt they were unable to comment due to a lack of knowledge on the topic, in this case

particularly a lack of awareness of the measures taken by the Council to tackle homelessness. The majority

of positive comments received focused on an apparent reduction in the numbers of homeless people in

Oxford and lower numbers compared with other UK locations. Some verbatim responses include:

“I still regularly see homeless people in Oxford, although probably less than in the past and

probably slightly fewer than in some other cities”

“Fewer people sleeping rough than before”

“Homelessness in Oxford does not seem to be a major problem in comparison to many

other places”

“Seen a lot less homeless in the last few years”

Of the negative comments received the majority centered on the continued presence of homeless

people in the city. Some verbatim responses include:

“I am still regularly approached by street beggars”

“Homeless people across Oxford on a daily basis, begging and being intimidating”

“There are still many homeless people around the city centre at all times of the day and

night”

“There seems to be an inordinate number of people selling big issue or begging”



Housing strategy objectives

Respondents were provided with a list of the seven objectives in the current Housing Strategy 2008/11 and

asked to what extent they agree or disagree with them. As Fig. 16 below illustrates agreement was high

across all the objectives, ranging from 82% agreeing overall that the Council should provide more

affordable housing, to 74% agreeing that they should improve their understanding of housing needs to

develop and implement housing strategy.

Fig 17 Extent to which respondents agree or disagree with the objectives in the current Housing Strategy 2008/2011 (Q5) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q5)

33

37

35

43

46

47

49

41

42

44

38

38

37

32

16

13

12

11

10

9

7

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

6

6

6

5

4

5

4

Improve our understanding of housing needs to develop andimplement housing strategy

Improve the quality of existing housing stock across the city

Improve housing services, choice and quality of life on estates

Ensure housing services offer value for money

Address the housing needs of vulnerable people

Prevent and reduce homelessness

Provide more affordable housing to meet current and futureneeds in and around the city

% Strongly agree % Tend to agree % Tend to disagree % Strongly disagree % Don't know



In order to get a better sense of prioritization respondents were then asked to list their top 3 objectives in the

current Housing Strategy 2008/11. In line with the previous question providing more affordable housing was

most frequently identified by respondents as being in the top 3 objective they most agreed with (61%).

Similarly preventing and reducing homelessness was the second most popular objective (54%), closely

followed by addressing the needs of vulnerable people (52%). Improving understanding of housing needs

to develop and implement housing strategy was the objective respondents least agreed with (24%).

Fig 18 Objectives in the current Housing Strategy 2008/11 mentioned amongst respondents’ top 3 most agreed with (Q5) Any mention of the objective across the top 3 most stated agreed with as a percentage of all those

completing this question (Q5)

24%

33%

33%

34%

52%

54%

61%

Improve our understanding of housing needs to develop andimplement housing strategy

Ensure housing services offer value for money

Improve housing services, choice and quality of life on estates

Improve the quality of existing housing stock across the city


Prevent and reduce homelessness

Provide more affordable housing to meet current and futureneeds in and around the city



Table 11 Objectives in the current Housing Strategy 2008/11 mentioned amongst respondents’ top 3 most agreed with (Q5) Any mention of the objective across the top 3 most stated agreed with as a percentage of all those

completing this question (Q5)

Percent

Provide more affordable housing to

meet current and future needs in and

around the city

Prevent and reduce

homelessness


Base:

17-34 years 56 67 56 27

35-54 years 57 58 51 91

55+ 66 49 52 152

Male 66 57 46 104

Female 59 52 56 164

Disabled 65 40 45 20


White 62 55 53 250

Non-white 62 54 31 13



Central 70 78 53 40

North 61 56 50 54

East 47 50 50 36

North East 66 47 57 70


Cowley 55 48 52 29

Respondents in the East are less likely than those in the Central and North East committee areas to see

providing more affordable housing as a top 3 objective (47% compared with 70% and 66%).

Respondents aged 55+ are less likely to see preventing and reducing homelessness as a top 3 issue

compared with the youngest respondents (49% in comparison to 67% of those aged 17-34). Unsurprisingly

those living in the Central area are more likely than respondents across all other committee areas to see

preventing and reducing homelessness as a top 3 issue (78%).



Impact of changes to tenancies

Respondents were informed that the government is suggesting councils and housing associations consider

offering fixed-term tenancies rather than tenancies for life. At the same time the rents for social housing will

be increased. Respondents were then asked what impact they thought these changes might have on

housing and homelessness in Oxford. Seven out ten (70%) respondents stated that the thought the

proposals would have a big impact, with 23% saying ‘very’ big impact. Just 9% said they thought they would

have little impact and 2% no impact. One fifth (19%) gave don’t know as a response.

Fig 19 Level of impact respondents think changes to tenancies will have on housing and homelessness in Oxford (Q6) Includes ‘Don’t know’ responses (Q6)

19%

2%

9%

25%

22%

23%

Don't know

No impact

Little impact

Fairly big impact

Big impact

Very big impact

Total big impact: 70%



Table 12 Level of impact respondents think changes to tenancies will have on housing and homelessness in Oxford (Q6) Percentage of respondents stating either ‘very big’, ‘big’, or ‘fairly big’ impact; Includes ‘Don’t

know’ responses (Q6)

Percent Big Impact Overall Base:

17-34 years 63 30

35-54 years 65 134

55+ 75 245

Male 66 165

Female 74 239

Disabled 69 36

Non-disabled 69 321

White 69 376

Non-white 92 24



Central 77 57

North 70 90

East 66 41

North East 69 108

South East 73 63

Cowley 66 47

There are no significant differences in demographic groups thinking changes to tenancies will have big

impact.



Respondents were invited to comment on the government’s suggestion that councils and housing

associations consider offering fixed-term tenancies rather than tenancies for life. Responses received were

mixed, with some respondents in favour of the proposal and others against it. Comments received from

those in favour largely focused on how tenant’s circumstances and subsequent housing needs are liable to

change and how tenancies should therefore be fixed for only a certain period of time. Comments included:

“Fixed term tenancies would free up houses that are under occupied”

“If council housing is to meet need then it seems appropriate that when family sizes change,

the housing changes to a more appropriate size”

“If the new policy results in more homes becoming available for families then it has to be

welcomed; 3-bed social homes with only one tenant does not help reduce the housing

waiting list.”

“I think it is right that council housing should be used to help people in need and not simply be

occupied for the lifetime of the tenant once that need has passed. It should be available for

other needy people who are currently stuck on waiting lists. Council tenants should be asked

to downsize once the children have left home or are adult so that a homeless family can use

the property”

Some respondents in favour also felt that the current tenancies for life are unfair and unnecessary:

“I think the subsidised arrangements for life tenancies are not fair, and I support the fixed-term

tenancies. I think renters should be paying the higher prices that homeowners pay”

“I think it's outrageous that council house tenants are offered tenancies for life: the house is

not theirs, it's a social communal resource and should only ever be a temporary housing

solution, with tenants encouraged to move into private accommodation at the earliest

possible opportunity. Additionally, housing in council-owned property should never be

maintained to a higher standard than is generally available on the commercial private market”

“People should not rely on council and housing to home, them for life. We have a big

mortgage and have to struggle, so why shouldn't others it would mean giving up the

extravagant taxes”



Those against the government’s proposal focused on how the changes might result in an increase in

vulnerable and homeless people:

“I think this will end up making people feel afraid and constantly worried. Leading to more

vulnerable people”

“The gap between renting with subsidised help and the cost of attending a property is too

wide for those of a low income to reach - I imagine higher rents and limited tenancies will

impact negatively and may result in increased homelessness”

“In my opinion, the fixed-term tenancies will create tenants having to leave their houses and

look for other accommodation, which is usually more expensive (e.g. Landlords will make

tenants leave in order to be able to increase rent prices and look for tenants that would pay

more). Also, the increase of social housing rents will increase homelessness, which will

create more beggars on streets and put off many more tourists that wouldn't come back to

Oxford”

“The impact will be negative in relation to the poorest people, fixed term tenancies and higher

rents making them feel more vulnerable to homelessness”

Some respondents also felt the proposals would have a destabilising effect on communities:

“In an area where private ownership is inaccessible to a significant proportion of respondents,

life long tenancies are essential in tackling social exclusion and promoting community

belonging. How can people 'invest' in there communities if they are only there for a temporary

period. Increased rent -> increased housing subsidies or increased homelessness”

“What we need are stable/long term communities who can learn to live together over a long

time instead of families who don't know who their neighbours and are constantly wondering

what kind of people are living next door. I don't think communities can be built without

stability”

“I think this is a disaster - tenants fought for secure tenancies and the right was introduced in

1980 - fixed term tenancies destabilise communities and the planned benefit changes further

undermine the chances of poor citizens to have a decent home in a stable community. How

can they have a Big Society when they undermine it?”



Impact of changes to tenancies

In terms of further consultation on social housing policy changes, 39% said they would be interested in

providing further comment (via a short questionnaire) and 10% would be interested in attending a group

discussion.



4) Conclusions and recommendations

Oxford City Centre

♦ The most common reason for visiting the city centre is daytime shopping. Over two fifths

stated that they used the city centre for this purpose at least once a week. Almost one

third of people told us that they use food shops at least once a week, whilst just under

one-fifth said they use non-food shops with the same frequency

♦ Bus or coach is the most common form of transport used to the city centre in the day and

the evening. Bicycle was the second most popular form of transport respondents used in

the day time. Private vehicle as a modal choice is more popular in the evening in contrast

to the daytime – this pattern is also true for taxis.

♦ In terms of different aspects of the city centre, respondents are happiest with ‘a safe and

secure city centre’ and ‘ease of walking’.

♦ Oxford City Council need to give highest priority into areas that are perceived as important

in making the city centre enjoyable yet perform relatively weaker in terms of satisfaction.

Three factors fall into this quadrant: good quality public toilets, maintenance of roads and a

good variety of shops.

♦ On most measures when compared with the previous survey in 2010 feelings of

importance and satisfaction have increased. The percentage satisfied with the quality of

public toilets has also fallen 3%pts since the Spring 2010 survey whilst importance has

risen by 2%pts, confirming this as an area for particular focus.

♦ Conversely, the results also suggest that the authority is currently over-performing on

‘being able to find your way around the city centre easily’ because satisfaction was higher

than average on this measure but of relatively little importance to respondents. Resources

could potentially be taken away from this dimension in the city centre.

♦ Almost four fifths (79%) rated the streets and public squares in Oxford as clean – although

most people said they were ‘fairly clean’ (72%). This is a small increase since the question

was asked last year.

♦ People want a greater diversification of shopping choice in Oxford with three-quarters

agreeing they would visit the city centre more often if ‘there was a wider range of shops

available’.

♦ Eight out of ten (80%) respondents said they are satisfied overall with Oxford city centre.

This is a slight increase since the previous survey although the overall distribution of

satisfaction remains very similar. One fifth of respondents remain dissatisfied with the city

centre.



♦ When asked what the best thing about Oxford’s city centre is, the most popular response

was in relation to historic and attractive buildings.

Housing in Oxford

♦ Respondents told us that the most important housing issues in Oxford are a lack of

affordable housing for families and high house prices – over one half of people selected

this within their top 3 issues.

♦ The majority told us that new housing should consist of family sized homes of 3 and 4

bedrooms (57%) whilst 41% felt there is a need for more smaller homes. Just 20% stated

that family size flats are required. Just over one half think that new homes should be

away from Oxford and in surround towns.

♦ One fifth of respondents rated the Council’s performance on the provision of affordable

housing in Oxford as fairly good or better. Slightly more rated the Council’s performance

on preventing homelessness in Oxford as good. In both cases, over 40% said they didn’t

know how to answer suggesting low awareness amongst the general public on activity in

this policy area which should be addressed via communications.

♦ Feedback has been collected on the seven objectives in the current Housing Strategy

2008/11. Agreement was high across all the objectives - ranging from the highest

endorsement for providing more affordable housing, to relatively fewer agreeing that the

Council should improve their understanding of housing needs to develop and implement

housing strategy.

♦ Seven out ten respondents stated that they thought the proposals that social landlords

might offer fixed-term tenancies rather than tenancies for life and that rents will be

increased would have a big impact - with one quarter saying it would have a ‘very’ big

impact. Just 9% said they thought they would have little impact.

♦ In terms of further consultation on social housing policy changes, 39% said they would be

interested in providing further comment (via a short questionnaire) and 10% would be

interested in attending a group discussion.



Appendix A: Sample composition

Percent

Responded

(unweighted)

17-24 years 2

25-34 years 5

35-44 years 17

45-54 years 16

55-64 years 28

65+ years 32

Male 41

Female 59

Disabled 10

Not disabled 90

White 94

Non-white 6

Employed full time 33

Employed part time 13

Full time student 3

Self employed 8

Retired 37

Looking after home/family 2 Unemployed and available for work 2

Permanently sick/disabled 3

Council tenant 8 Housing Association tenant 3

Rent privately 6

Living with family/friends 2 Buying through shared ownership 0

Owner occupier with mortgage 30

Own home outright 48 Live in a communal establishment 1

Other 2



Central 14

North 21

East 10

North East 27

South East 16

Cowley 12




Oxford City TalkBack Panel Spring 2011 FINDINGS REPORT · OXFORD TALKBACK SURVEY – SPRING 2011 M·E·L RESEARCH 1) Project details Title Oxford City TalkBack Survey Report Client

Documents