SPA ROAD DESIGN SHOPS REPO R T CONSULTATION...Braintree District Council in partnership with Greenfields Community Housing secured £150,000 to improve the convenience and visual appearance

SPA ROAD SHOPS

backingwithamyour town your future

DESIGN CONSULTATION R E P O R T

PORTFOLIO AREA: ENVIRONMENT & PLACEREPORT PREPARED BY: STEPHEN WENLOCK, DISTRICT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT COLBY CROSSMAN, GRADUATE LANDSCAPE PROJECT OFFICER ANNA WEBSTER, LANDSCAPING AND SUSTAINABILITY APPRENTICE

SUM

MER 2016

Table of Contents Page number Executive Summary………………………… 1 Proposals …………………………………… 2 Consultation Aim …………………………….. 3 Consultation process …………………. 3 Media & Advertising ………………………… 3 Consultation findings …………………. 4 Recommendation ………………………. 8 Comments Register …………………….... 9 Comments made about how people feel about short stay parking spaces……………………..

9

Comments made about the proposals……….. 13 Comments made about improvements people feel should not be made……………………….

13

Further comments made ……………………. 14

3

Executive Summary: Braintree District Council in partnership with Greenfields Community Housing secured £150,000 to improve the convenience and visual appearance of Spa Road shops in Witham. Witham Town Council has requested a further £50,000 of S106 funding is committed to the project. The first phase of consultation carried out in Summer 2015 sought to understand the use of Spa road shops, and what improvements the public would like to see. The public feedback from this exercise strongly influenced the design plan (shown overleaf). Braintree District Council undertook a second phase of consultation to learn which design proposals were supported, and to test the public’s priority order for delivery. The consulted ran from 26

th April to 2

nd June 2016, generating a total of 99 responses. This

consultation report illustrates strong support for the designs, and provides a priority order for delivery. What the Public told us All of the proposals are supported by 87% or more The categories used below stem from the consultation report carried out in 2015 in which people told us that improvements to parking, safety and landscaping were the most required proposals. Parking proposals

• 63% of people said they would use the ‘drop in’ parking spaces

• 88% of people said they would use the short stay spaces, if provided • There is a 54/36 split on the support for short stays spaces between 30 minutes and 1

hour respectively Safety proposals (including lighting)

• 88% of people said they would use the shops more if safety changes were made • 99% of people said they would like a lighting scheme which compliments the urban

environment Landscaping proposals

• 80% of people are happy with the removal of trees to carry out the work

• 97% of people would like to see the area around the shops landscaped Of all the proposals, parking, safety, ‘drop in’ parking bays, highways improvements and courtyard improvements were the most supported by public. This report shows solid public approval, and an alignment of opinion behind these proposals which gives strong validation for their suitability for the site. The recommendation of this report is to use the findings to influence the delivery of the proposals, with the most popular being prioritised first.

4

Spa road shops consultation design plan – Spring 2016

5

Consultation Aim: The consultation was undertaken to:

• To test how well supported the proposed improvements were, and to establish a priority order for delivery.

• To refine the Council’s approach to improving Spa road shops by listening to the public, recording their comments and referring to them to guide the final design-work.

• To ensure that the Council has an accurate reading of public opinion so that it can provide the most effective service to the public in relation to Spa road shops.

Consultation Process: The consultation ran from 26th April – 2nd June 2016 with the intention of giving everyone who uses Spa road shops or the surrounding locations an opportunity to give their thoughts and opinions on the design plan. The below list represents the components of the process:

Media – how could people find the questionnaire give their feedback

• a dedicated page on the Braintree District Council webpage 26th April – 2nd June 19th 2016

• an A4 questionnaire booklet (and Freepost envelopes) posted to 2,846 addresses

• an online questionnaire on the Council webpage

• signs erected at the shops directing residents and customers to the questionnaire

• consultation event held at Spa Road shops on 30th April 10am – 2pm

• online article on the Braintree & Witham times website 18th May 2016

• article on page 2 of the Braintree & Witham Times 28th April 2016

• full page article on page 8 of the Essex Chronicle 28th April 2016

• published in Council Page area of Braintree & Witham Times in all three towns 5th May 2016

Advertising – how did people know about the consultation

• a letter was sent to each address in the surrounding areas of Spa Road shops informing them of the consultation

• people who notified BDC they wanted to be kept informed during the previous consultation were emailed the details of the consultation

• social media posts on the 26th, 29th, 30th of April and 16th, 22nd, 24th, 28th, 31st of May informing people of the consultation and how to respond.

The consultation formally closed to responses on the 2nd of June 2016, allowing the feedback to be analysed and this report of the findings to be produced.

6

Consultation Findings: The consultation generated 99 responses during the open period. Detail on the main responses is given on the following pages.

Tables to detail the responses to the Spa road design consultation: Discrepancies in the totals for the numbers of people who responded can be explained, as not everyone responded to every question. Table A: Are local people happy with Spa road shops as they are?

I am happy with Spa road shops currently YES % NO % 0 0% 99 100%

Table B: How people felt about the proposals

Do you support… YES % NO % Changing the layout of the car park behind the shops to increase provision of parking spaces by 31?

93 97% 3 3%

The creation of 21 short stay parking bays to provide spaces for shoppers?:

90 95% 5 5%

If we were to provide short stay parking spaces, would you use them?

83 88% 11 12%

Narrowing the entrance to the car park to stop cars from parking along the double yellows to improve access and safety?

91 96% 4 4%

Creating a defendable parking space for residents at Spa road to free up more spaces in the car park?

92 98% 2 2%

Creating 10 drop-in parking bays at the front of the shops? 82 87%

12 13%

If we were to create 10 drop-in parking spaces directly off of Spa Road, would you use the shops more often than if we didn’t create it?

59 63% 34 37%

Landscaping the area around Spa road shops? 93 97% 3 3% Removing or reducing the height of the wall at the front of the shops to increase visibility and reduce hiding places?

89 95% 5 5%

A lighting scheme which compliments the urban environment? 95 99% 1 1%

Would you be more likely to use the shops after dark if these changes were made?:

84 88% 11 12%

Table B illustrates that:

• All of the proposals are supported by a majority of people

• About 60% of people would use the shops more if the drop in spaces at the front of the shops were created

• 88% of people would use the shops after dark if the changes were made

• 88% of people would use the short stay spaces if provided

• 99% of people support a lighting scheme which compliments an urban environment

7

Table C: If we were to implement short stay parking, which would be best for you?

Length of time Number of people % Up to 30 minutes 46 50% 1 hour or more 34 36% 2 hours or more 3 3% I don’t have a preference 9 10% I wouldn’t use these spaces 1 1% I don’t drive 0 0% Table C illustrates that:

• The majority of people feel ‘30 minutes’ would be best, but almost as many people feel ‘1 hour or more’ is better

Table D: Comments people made about short stay parking 1 hour is enough time 18 30 minutes is enough time 16

30 minutes is NOT enough time 12 I live close to the shops and walk there 5

I don’t think this is important 1 Table D illustrates that:

• Only one person at present does not feel parking is important Table E: Number of people who support specific proposals

Rank Proposal No. of people in support % 1st A – Courtyard Improvements 85 86% 2nd H – Parking Improvements 84 85% 3rd D – Safety Improvements 82 83%

4th F – Drop in Parking 81 82% 5th G – Highways Improvements 80 81%

6th B – Canopy Improvements 79 80% 7th M - Recycling 79 80%

8th E – Landscape Improvements 78 79% 9th C – Resident Parking 74 75% 10th L – Fence in front of schools 71 72%

11th K – Lorry Movements 70 71% 12th I – Landscaping Improvements 69 70%

People were provided with an A3 design plan (as shown on page 2) and asked to tick a box for each proposal that they supported. The table below illustrates the outcome of this and is ordered by the greatest number of people in support of each proposal. Table E illustrates that:

• The proposals, individually, have a high level of support, gaining at least 70% approval across the range of proposals.

8

Table F: The importance of each proposal in relation to all other options

Rank Proposal Total weight score

% of total score

No. of times 1st choice

No. of times 2nd choice

1st H – Parking Improvements 460 15% 25 5 2nd D – Safety Improvements 363 12% 3 8 3rd F – Drop in Parking 338 11% 10 11 4th G – Highways Improvements 337 11% 7 9 5th A – Courtyard Improvements 293 9% 7 5

6th E – Landscape Improvements

253 8% 1 6

7th C – Resident Parking 244 8% 7 2 8th M - Recycling 196 6% 1 1 9th B – Canopy Improvements 188 6% 0 4 10th L – Fence in front of schools 157 5% 2 1 11th K – Lorry Movements 143 5% 1 3 12th I – Landscaping

Improvements 135 4% 0 4

People were asked to rank ten of the twelve proposals from 1 to 10 (with 10 being most important and 1 being least important) in order to define the importance of each proposal in relation to all other options. If a proposal was chosen as the most important then it received 10 points which decreased down to 1 point for the least important.

Some trees will need to be removed in order to allow the work to happen (we will plant 28 more)

YES % NO % 80 80% 19 20%

Table F illustrates that:

• Most people see parking improvements as the most important of the proposal

• The next proposals are all seen as equally important which are safety improvements, drop-in parking, and highway improvements.

• 80% of people are happy with trees being removed to allow the work to commence, and additional trees to be planted to replace these

Table H: If we shouldn’t carry out an improvement please state

F – Drop in Parking 6 Removal of trees 4

I – Landscape Improvements 2 C – Resident Parking 1

E – Landscape Improvements 1 Table H illustrates that:

• There are very few people (below 6%) who believe that any one proposal is a bad idea.

9

Table G: Further suggestions made by people Litter bins 3

Plants & flowers 2 CCTV 2

Cycle racks 2 Signage 1

Seating/benches 2 Dog securing point(s) 1

10

Recommendation:

We know from the consultation analysis that all of the proposals are strongly supported by

the Public and are considered a priority for implementation, but there is a clear, elevated,

consensus of public opinion that aligns even more strongly behind four of them in particular.

This can be seen in the extracts of two tables shown below and coincidentally this also

agrees with the priorities evident from the first consultation.

The four top proposals are:-

• Parking improvements,

• Safety improvements,

• ‘Drop-in’ parking,

• Highways improvements Where the tables show the level of support behind them:-

In Table F Table E

• They receive 50% of the total combined score

• And constitute 60% of all first choice selections

• All four proposals rank in the top five of supported proposals

The support evident for these proposals is further reinforced when we look back at the first consultation undertaken in 2015. How the proposals were supported in the first consultation:-

Table E (2015 consultation) Table H (2015 consultation) The three highest scoring changes which would make people more likely to use the shops were-:

• Better lighting

• Landscaping the area

• Short stay spaces

The four highest scoring changes people would make to Spa road shops were:

• Parking

• Improve the appearance of the shops

• Lighting

• Safety The recommendation of this report is to use the findings to inform the apportionment of

project delivery funds so that the most popular and effective proposals are able to be

implemented with priority over the less popular proposals. Where project funds allow, the

council could look to implement the additional elements the Public have suggested a need

for (seating for example).