Fit for the Future Consultation Report, Lichfield District Council MayMay————JuneJune 2014

Produced on behalf of Lichfield District Council by:

DOCUMENT DETAILS

This document has been produced on behalf of Lichfield District Council by the Staffordshire County Council Insight Team.

Title Fit for the Future, Consultation Report, Lichfield District Council, May-June 2014 Date created July 2014 Description The purpose of this document is to provide Lichfield District Council with their Fit for the Future consultation results. The consultation was an awareness raising exercise to inform residents about the work which Lichfield District Council does. It also provided an opportunity to help people understand relative spend. The report documents residents views on which services matter the most, ideas on how to raise additional income and ideas to reduce costs. The report should be used to inform service reviews and business cases. It should not be used as a mandate to cut, change or charge for specific services. Produced by Heather Collier, Research Co-ordinator, Insight Team, Staffordshire County Council Tel: 01785 27 7450 Email: [email protected]

Lichfield District Council Colin Cooke contact details Performance, Efficiency and Improvement Officer Lichfield District Council District Council House Frog Lane Lichfield Staffs WS13 6YY

Tel: 01543 308121 Email: [email protected] Geographical coverage Lichfield District Council Time period May—June 2014 Format PDF and Publisher files Status Final (Version 1) Usage statement This product is the property of Lichfield District Council. If you wish to reproduce this document either in whole, or in part, please acknowledge the source and the author (s).

Disclaimer Staffordshire County Council, while believing the information in this publication to be correct, does not guarantee its accuracy nor does the County Council accept any liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or other consequences, however arising from the use of such information supplied.

2 CONTENTS

Title Page

Document Details 2

Contents 3

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Introduction and Methodology 5

3. The Importance of Statutory Services 8

4. Views on Discretionary Services 14

5. Use of Leisure Services and Public Amenities 20

6. Ideas to Generate Income 23

7. Ideas to Save Money 26

8. Other Ideas 29

Appendix 1: Respondent Profile 31

Appendix 11: Fit for the Future Questionnaire Template 33

Appendix III: Ward level analysis 35

3 1. E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

The importance of statutory services Statutory services are those services which the Council must provide. All statutory services included in the Lichfield District Council consultation were regarded as important by the majority. However, universal services including waste and recycling and rubbish/fly-tipping were the services which were considered the most important by all. Unpalatable changes to these services would be unpopular with residents and any changes to these services would therefore need careful consideration. An awareness of the relative importance of these services will be a key consideration in the decision making processes ahead.

Other universal provision, for example website and customer services, were also regarded as important, but relatively less so in comparison to the Council’s other statutory services. These services may present opportunities to explore different ways of provision which are more efficient, effective and meet customer needs. For example, more information could be included on the website to encourage a behavioural shift to web rather than face to face and telephone contact. Further exploration of the potential for telephone and face to face contact to be tailored to times when residents need them most, could be beneficial.

The provision of discretionary services The Council also provides a wide range of discretionary services and these are the ones which the Council chooses to provide. Respondents were keen to protect the brown bins and composting. If this service were to be stopped or reduced comments suggest that there would be concerns that this might lead to problems of fly-tipping or mixing garden waste in household refuse.

There were however other services which could be reduced or stopped with a lesser impact. The most noticeable of these was the Intouch magazine. This received most support for being reduced/cut. It was however, a more popular method of communicating with older residents aged 75 and above and any changes to this service would impact most on this age group.

The use of leisure and amenity services The majority of respondents (96%) have used at least one leisure or amenity service within the district. Facilities in Lichfield including car parks, toilets and the Garrick were used most frequently. Regular use of the leisure centres and toilets/car parks in Chasetown and Burntwood was however relatively low.

Ideas to generate income Respondents were supportive of Lichfield District Council’s ideas to generate income. Most support was provided for charging for parking in Chasetown and paying for events for example the Lichfield Proms.

Respondents were largely unsupportive of charges for emptying the brown bins Residents aged 55 and above and disabled residents were least supportive of these charges. Evening charges for parking in Lichfield were also unpopular. Respondents comments illustrated that charges could “put people off” coming into Lichfield in the evening and “stop people visiting Lichfield restaurants, pubs or the Garrick Theatre”.

Ideas to save money Stopping the chairman’s car/driver and reducing the number of district councillors were the money saving ideas which received the most support. Respondents were however clear that street cleaning and the monitoring of dog fouling should not be considered for money saving initiatives.

General efficiency and less waste in the provision of all services was supported and evidenced through respondents’ comments. Respondents also provided additional ideas which could help the Council to reduce costs/save money. These included involving communities in service delivery and using volunteers, the third sector, and alternative providers where these provided better value for money.

4 2.1 INTRODUCTION

Lichfield District Council spends more than £10 million annually delivering a range of public services from leisure centres and planning to emptying bins, providing benefits and supporting local businesses.

Due to cuts in funding from national government, the District Council need to make savings. To achieve this, District Councillors face some tough decisions about what services should be continued, what can be cut or reduced and whether some services could become chargeable to raise more income.

Residents of the Lichfield District play a key role in shaping the decisions which Councillors face and as such residents were invited to participate in the Fit for the Future consultation. The consultation was an awareness raising exercise to inform residents about the work which Lichfield District Council does. It also provided an opportunity to help people understand relative spend and comment on which services matter the most, how additional income could be raised and to share ideas on new ways to reduce costs. The report should be used to inform service reviews and business cases. It should not be used as a mandate to cut, change or charge for specific services.

This report has been produced by Staffordshire County Council on behalf of Lichfield District Council. It summarises and analyses the Fit for the Future consultation responses and is structured into key sections. These cover the importance of statutory services, views on discretionary services, usage of leisure and public amenities, ideas to generate income and ideas to save money. Results are analysed by key themes and demographics where these are relevant and robust.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

A Member Working Group was established in the Autumn of 2013 to progress thinking and planning for delivering a robust, informative consultation.

This was supplemented by Lichfield District Council’s Consultation Working Group who were responsible for the delivery of the consultation. Members played a vital role in shaping the consultation through the Member Working Group.

The methodologies used to capture views in the consultation have been diverse. Electronic and paper surveys were developed by the Consultation Working Group. These were piloted with Voluntary Voice and discussed with partners on the Lichfield District Board before going live.

The electronic version was published on the District Council website and the postal version included a freepost reply and was distributed to the majority of homes in the district through the Intouch magazine.

Members widely promoted the consultation via their links and networks. Paper copies of the survey were also made available from customer outlets provided by the District Council and its partners e.g. Support Staffordshire Lichfield and District.

The Market Research Company Qa, were also commissioned to undertake street interviews with residents living in the Lichfield District. These were conducted towards the end of the consultation period and were targeted to rural areas and residents under the age of 55 and above the age of 75. These groups were targeted because they had been identified as lower responders in the early consultation results.

5 1148 responses were received to the consultation overall. 321 to the web survey, 665 to the postal survey and 162 to the street interviews. This is a statistically robust number of responses based on the population of the Lichfield District. The margin of error is +/-2.9 at the 95% confidence level.

Many respondents included literal comments within their responses. This unstructured data has been analysed and 469 themed comments have been produced and referenced in the report. Common themes are indicative of important topics to respondents and these are robust at the thematic level. Individual comments have also been referenced in the report. Whilst these are not statistically robust they do provide an additional valuable understanding of residents views for consideration by decision-makers.

Responses were received from all key demographic groups. A summary of these is contained below and a profile of all respondents by key demographics is contained within Appendix I.

Responses by age group Responses were received from all age groups. However, the survey is under represented by under 35’s and over represented by those aged 35 and above. Key differences by age groups are documented throughout the report where there are marked differences to enable a clear understanding of priorities and views by the respective age groups.

Responses by ward Responses were received from all wards although representation does vary. Some wards for example, Boley Park are over represented. Others for example Fazeley are under represented. The percent response by ward is reflected in the map on page 7 and a full breakdown of ward data is available in Appendix III, on request. This includes the survey results compared to the most up to date comparisons available, for example the Census 2011 and Mid Year Estimates, 2012. Caution should be applied when viewing ward level results, particularly where representation is significantly different from the census comparison and where the number of responses are low.

Response by rural/urban area According to the Office of National Statistics, the Lichfield district has a rural/urban classification of ‘R50’. This means that over 50% of the district population live within a rural area. 59% of the Lichfield population live in a rural area and 41% live in an urban area. Survey responses were received from both urban and rural areas. However, the largest proportion of survey responses were received from urban area (67%). One third were received from rural areas (33%).

Representation by some key demographics does vary and therefore an analysis of the results by person type provides an important understanding of priorities. The results are representative by other key demographics including gender and ethnicity.

6 Figure 2.1: Survey responses by ward (%)

7 3. THE IMPORTANCE OF STATUTORY SERVICES *

3.1. The importance of statutory services Respondents were asked to indicate whether the range of statutory services outlined below were ‘important’, ‘important but not used’, ‘not important’ or they ‘did not know’. A summary of the services which are ‘important’ and ‘not important’ is outlined below. All of the Council’s statutory services were considered important by at least three quarters of respondents. Waste and recycling services were considered most important. Customer services and website services were viewed as marginally less important.

Figure 3.1: The importance of statutory services (%)** Average importance (89%)

Important Not important Don’t know

NB: ‘Important’ combines the categories of ‘important’ and ‘important but not used’. NB: The average importance is calculated by adding up the importance attached to all services and dividing this by the

Some services were considered ‘important’ but were not used universally by Lichfield residents. Lichfield residents were most likely to feel this way about each of the services outlined below:

• Grants to people with disabilities to help them adapt their home. • Support to people in housing need and helping homeless people. • Council Tax discounts and benefits to people in financial difficulty.

Other services demonstrated variation in views by key demographics, for example age and the urban or rural location of where people lived. The most significant differences are summarised below.

Key differences by person type • Clearing rubbish and fly tipping becomes more important with age. 90% of under 18’s felt this was important. This rose to 100% for those aged 75 and above. • Website services were more important to the mid age ranges (25-64 year olds). • Elections were viewed as more important in urban areas (85% importance in urban areas compared to 76% in rural areas). • Customer services were more important in urban areas (80% compared to 73% in rural areas).

* Statutory services: These are the services which the Council are legally obliged to provide. ** £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), £££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000). 8 Comments

Respondents shared their views about the importance of services but questioned if some services could be delivered differently.

Bins: • “We need to keep emptying bins or fly-tipping and congestion at tips could cause problems”.

Customer services: • “Don't reduce the number of hours for customer services and phone lines but change the hours to bet- ter suit people who need to use them”.

Website: • “Offer more services that can be done through the website”.

Services overall: • “Actually, all the services you list should be provided by the Council, perhaps you should be looking at ways to improve the way that you provide these”.

9 3.2. The importance of Environmental Services

The majority of Environmental Services functions were viewed as important. Noise pollution/complaints had the largest percentage of people who viewed the service as important but have not needed to use the service.

Figure 3.2: Opinions on the importance of Environmental Services (%)*

Average importance (89%)

Don’t know

Not important

Key differences by person type Respondents who lived in rural areas had a slightly different perspective to those who lived in urban areas. Cleanliness/litter picks and noise/pollution complaints were more highly valued by residents in urban areas.

By age group, the noise/pollution complaints service became increasingly important with age. 84% of under 18’s said these were important and this rose to 94% or higher for respondents aged 55 and above.

Comments • “We need to keep emptying bins or fly-tipping and congestion at tips could cause problems”. • “Changes in waste collection would result in more fly-tipping - look at what is happening in Birmingham”. • “Promote reduction in packaging”. • “Reduce the amount of road and pavement sweeping in residential areas. They are mostly ineffective anyway”. • Increase fines for litter droppers/dog fouling”. • “Voluntary litter wardens for each road/small group of roads”.

* £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), £££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000). 10 3.3. The importance of Planning Services Planning Services were generally regarded as important. Production of the local plan was regarded as slightly less important and stood at nine percentage points below the average level of importance.

Figure 3.4: Opinions on the importance of Planning Services (%)* Average importance (89%)

Don’t know

Not important

Key differences by person type • The local plan was generally regarded as marginally more important by older residents aged 55 and above. • New buildings approval and the local plan were considered slightly more important in urban areas than in rural areas (by three percentage points).

Comments • “Encourage more shops into Lichfield or Burntwood. Lichfield has cafes for tourists but nothing really to encourage locals to return”. • “Charge for new buildings/extensions to buildings”. “Increase the cost of planning applications”. “Have larger fines for planning infringements”. • “Improve facilities to attract more visitors, e.g. improving links between Lichfield and The National Memorial Arboretum”.

11

* £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), 3.4. The importance of Community Services Community Safety activities were considered important, The majority also felt website services and customer services were important. These functions were however both below the average level of importance by 12 percentage and 11 percentage respectively.

Figure 3.5: Opinions on the importance of Community Services (%)*

Average importance (89%)

Don’t know

Not important

Key differences by person type Website services were considered more important by the mid age ranges (25-64 year olds). They were slightly less important with younger respondents, who were less likely to use services and older respondents, who may be less inclined to prefer web services as a method of communication.

There were also some differences by location. Customer services and website services were both viewed as less important in rural areas by seven percentage points and six percentage points respectively.

Comments • “Offer more services that can be done through the website”. • “Only being open between 8.45am and 5.15pm prevents people who work from doing what they need to do. Promote more internet and email communications as more and more people conduct their "business" evenings and weekends e.g. fix my street is very good”. • “Open customer service lines on a Saturday”. • “The staff are always friendly and helpful. But, the offices are clearly understaffed and struggle at peak times”. • “Don't reduce the number of hours for customer services and phone lines but change the hours to better suit people who need to use them”.

* £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), £££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000). 12 3.5. The importance of services which support people Disability Grants were rated as more important than the average level of importance by two percentage points. Housing and homelessness services and Council Tax discounts were below the average by one percentage point and nine percentage points respectively.

Figure 3.6: Opinions on the importance of services which support people (%) Average importance

(89%) Key

*£ = Small net budget up to £50,000,

££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000)

£££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000).

Don’t know

Not important

Key differences by person type Housing and homelessness support services were considered slightly more important by younger respondents, under the age of 35.

Comments • “Need to help more homeless people and people in need”.

3.6. The importance of Elections and Licensing services Licensing services are three percentage points above the average level of importance whilst Election Services fall seven percentage points below the average.

Figure 3.7: Opinions on the importance of Elections and Licensing services (%)

Average importance (89%)

Don’t know

Not important

Key differences by person type Elections were statistically considered more important to residents living in urban areas. Residents in urban areas were 10 percentage points more likely to agree elections were important than residents in rural locations. 13 4. THE PROVISION OF DISCRETIONARY SERVICES *

4.1 Views on discretionary services Respondents were invited to indicate which of the below services they would like to protect, cut back or stop. The responses residents provided are summarised below. Services which residents were most keen to protect included the brown bins/composting service, the provision and maintenance of toilets and the management and maintenance of parks and open spaces. Services which residents would most support being cut or stopped included the ‘Intouch’ magazine, the provision of advice on helping people to keep warm and reducing their energy bills and financial support to the Lichfield Garrick and its community projects. Figure 4.1: Views on discretionary services (%)**

Protect Average : 53% Cut back/stop Average: 43% Protect

Cut back/ Cut back/ stop stop

NB: Responses of ‘cut back’ and ‘stop’ have been combined in this analysis. NB: The averages are calculated by adding up all the percent responses from all services for a given answer option (e.g. protect) and dividing this by the total number of services.

Key differences by person type • Brown bins: Older people aged 55 and above and residents with a disability supported protecting brown bins the most. • The Lichfield Garrick is more supported by those in rural areas than in urban areas (36% in rural areas would protect it compared to 30% in urban areas). • ‘Intouch’ is valued more by 75 and above year olds and those living in urban areas. • The customer service desk was valued most by those aged 75 and above and the telephone helpline was valued most by those aged 65 and above. • Residents with a disability were more likely to support maintaining mobility scooters (51% with a disability would protect, compared to 43% without a disability). • Regular users of leisure centres (monthly or more) were far more likely to want to protect leisure centres and outdoor pitches. 77% of users wanted to protect them compared to 48% of non users.

* Discretionary services: These are the services which the Council choose to provide. ** £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), £££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000). 14

Comments Bins: • “No reduction of the Black/Brown/Blue bin should be contemplated, and the suggestion that a charge should be made is totally unacceptable. It is the only regular service some communities receive from the council”.

Communications: • “Stop expecting everyone to have the internet. If people don’t receive 'Intouch' how will they know this district wide survey exists or know to go to the website”.

15 4.2 Environmental Services The largest majority of residents wanted to protect Environmental Services. Support was most evident for the brown bins/composting of organic waste service and the provision/maintenance of public toilets.

Figure 4.2: Views on Environmental Services (%)* Protect average: 53%

Don’t know Stop

Key differences by person type • Residents with a disability and those aged 65 and above were more likely to support maintaining the bulky waste collection service. • Those aged 65 and above were most likely to want to see the continued provision/maintenance of toilets.

Comments Brown bins/composting: • “No reduction of the Black/Brown/Blue bin should be contemplated, and the suggestion that a charge should be made is totally unacceptable. It is the only regular service some communities receive from the council. Changes in that system would result in more fly-tipping - look at what is happening in Birmingham”.

Toilets: • “Keep them open. There is nothing worse than wandering around desperate for a toilet. Closing public toilets and expecting visitors to find a cafe when they arrive in town is ridiculous. If people feel obliged to buy something in order to visit a loo it will put people off coming back”. • “Toilets are especially important to visitors, to disabled people and to parents with young children”. • “Provided that the availability of facilities in pubs and shops was clearly signed in public places, this might be a suitable alternative”.

Bulky waste collections: • “Charge more for bulky rubbish collections People use this service infrequently so a charge of £50 for a collection wouldn’t be too bad”. • “Some charities do this for free (e.g. The British Heart Foundation) so there is no need for the Council to do it”.

Car parks: • “It would be a very bad idea to charge for car parks after 6.00pm as many people who currently come into Lichfield in the evening would go somewhere else”. • “Charging for parking in the evening would discourage drinking and driving”. • “Blue badges should be used to enable those with difficulties to park (not to park for free). I for one would be happy to pay a nominal fee when issued with my yearly pass”.

* £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), £££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000). 16 4.3 Leisure and Cultural Services In four out of the five services, the largest majority of residents wanted to protect services. Three out of the five services were above the average level of protection, two were below it. There was most support for protecting parks and the countryside and least support for protecting the Lichfield Garrick and its community work. Figure 4.3: Views on Leisure and Cultural Services (%)*

Protect average 53% Key

*£ = Small net budget up to £50,000,

££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000)

£££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000).

Don’t know

Key differences by person type • Four of the five services listed above (The Lichfield Garrick, Managing the Countryside, Leisure Centres/Outdoor Pitches and Protecting/Improving Historical Buildings) are more likely to be protected by rural residents. • Protecting Parks/Open Spaces is more common amongst urban residents.

Comments Parks/open spaces • “Parks and public spaces are well-maintained. I would be happy to pay a little more Council Tax in order to maintain this”. • “Use professional staff, offering horticultural apprenticeships: alongside using volunteers to work with the professionals”. • “Create 'wildflower meadows' on grass verges so less mowing required”.

Leisure Centres • “Leisure services is a hard one to cut back on as it promotes healthy lifestyles which are important for everyone. Cuts might also put more strain on NHS services”. • “I have managed asset transfer in the leisure industry and honestly think this is the best way”.

Protect/improve historical buildings • “Contract out managing countryside and areas of natural beauty”. • “Is this doubling up on work done by other agencies? I think it's important but not sure how much it is used”.

Lichfield Garrick • “Leave the Garrick contribution as it is. If this stops local societies such as the Players, Lichfield Operatic, Youth Theatre, will all have to pay more to hire this venue. It would cripple them and community theatre groups would be dead in this area. The arts struggle as it is!”. • “Large grants of support such as that for the Garrick should be reduced by tapering over say 3 years”. • “Force them to become self sufficient. Bookings of larger shows and more mainstream acts instead of ‘tribute acts’ and local theatre groups will bring more customers in”.

17 4.4 Community Services All five of the Community Services outlined in Figure 4.4 are below the average protection level. The largest majority would like to see cut backs or a stop to Intouch, energy advice and the customer service desk.

Figure 4.4: Views on Community Services (%)

Protect average 53% Key

*£ = Small net budget up to £50,000,

££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000)

£££ = Large net budget (between £200,000— £900,000).

Don’t know

Comments Telephone lines • “Telephone lines should be open when the offices are open, direct numbers should be accessible combined with an answerphone”. • “I do think reducing the hours that the council offices are open or the telephones are manned is a good idea as many organisations operate on fewer hours nowadays”. • “Increase the functionality of the LDC website to enable a reduction in the need for telephone lines to be open”. • “Why duplicate a customer service desk when telephone lines are open similar times?”.

Mobility scooters • “Mobility scooters should only be provided when better regulated”. • “I'd have thought that most people who need them would have them already”. • “All pavement and curbs, they are too high, people on scooters nearly trip over, not good!!”.

Customer services desk • “Improve the quality of the website - it is very difficult to find the information required from the website, possibly leading to calls to the customer services desk”. • “Don't reduce the number of hours for customer services and phone lines but change the hours to better suit people who need to use them. Only being opening between 8.45am and 5.15pm prevents people who work from doing what they need to do”.

Advice on Energy • “Energy and water saving measures in council premises”. • “Demand that all future housing must have green energy generation at the time of construction”. • “Put information on the website and provide leaflets for those without internet”. • “Create and run community energy schemes to sell energy cheaper than big energy businesses”. • “Companies provide energy advice so there is no need to duplicate the service”.

Intouch • “Ask households to register for an online version and only deliver hard copies to those who want it”. • “Print information in local papers”. “Stop expecting everyone to have the internet. If people don’t receive 18 'Intouch' how will they know this district wide survey exists or know to go to the website”. 4.5 Businesses It was most common for respondents to support attracting tourists to support business. There was less support for the town centre.

Figure 4.5: Views on business support (%)

Protect average: 53%

Don’t know

Key differences by person type The significance of business support/advice in rural areas was notable. Residents in rural areas were nine percentage points more likely to support protecting this service than those in rural areas and seven percentage points above the average level.

Comments Attract tourists to support business • “Encourage more tourism by advertising more widely and use the internet to do so”. • “Market the city better as a tourist stop off. We have the hotels now”.

Business support/advice • “Reduce the business rates for a period of 12 months to entice new business into the city, so that the city's economy grows from within and empty shops are filled”. • “Some of the services provided look like duplication of effort. Don't the LEP’s provide business advice and support tourism, not the Council?” • “Give incentives to shops run by small businesses”.

Town centre support • “Avoid rises in parking charges. Lichfield shops and businesses need to be able to compete with out of town shopping offering free parking (Ventura Park). Perhaps lowering the cost of parking would attract more business. Many people park free at Tesco and if that were not available the trade in the centre would suffer”. • “Reduce the amount of discount given on business rates to charities within the city, this will stop the city being over run by charity shops”. • “Over the past 1 - 2 years many stores have ceased trading - so depressing to see empty shops. Could the council (if they don’t already) offer prospective new owners/tenants a reduced letting rental for say a six month period in order to encourage new businesses to find their feet”. • “Local investment fund to help local business grow and attract inward investment”.

* £ = Small net budget up to £50,000, ££ = Moderate net budget (between £50,000—£200,000), £££ = Large net budget (between £200,000—£900,000). 19 5. U SAGE OF LICHFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL SERVICES

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they used leisure and amenities services provided by Lichfield District Council. The majority (96% of respondents) had used at least one of the District Council services listed below at some point in time (96%). Regular usage (monthly or more) of leisure centres and toilets/car parks in Chasetown and Burntwood was relatively low. Facilities in Lichfield including the car parks, toilets and the Garrick were used more frequently. Regular users were more likely to want to protect the Lichfield Garrick, Parks and Open Spaces and the Countryside.

Burntwood leisure centre Burntwood leisure centre

Figure 5.1: Use of Burntwood leisure centre (%) The majority of respondents do not use

Burntwood leisure. 12% used it on a monthly basis or more and these were more likely to be females or residents under the age of 18 or those living in an urban area. By ward, service users were most likely to be from Hammerwich, Chasetown or Chase Terrace,

Few comments were received about Burntwood. Those received included “sell off all leisure centres” and “clean up the litter by Burntwood leisure centre”.

Friary Grange leisure centre Friary Grange leisure centre

Figure 5.2: Use of Friary Grange leisure centre (%) The majority of respondents do not use Friary Grange. Of the 10% who used them on a monthly basis or more, they were more likely to be under the age of 18 and live in; Leomansley and Chadsmead.

Comment on Friary Grange were minimal and included “sell off Friary Grange”.

King Edward V1 leisure centre King Edward VI leisure centre

Figure 5.3: Use of King Edward V1 leisure centre (%) The majority of respondents do not use King Edward VI leisure centre. The 6% of respondents who did use it on a monthly basis or more were slightly more likely to be under the age of 18, live in an urban area or live in Boley Park or St John’s.

Residents were keen to comment about King Edward VI and comments included “hand over King Edward to the school”, “sell it off” and promote it for “private hire” as it is “a great facility which is very much underused”.

20 Lichfield Garrick Theatre

Figure 5.4: Use of Lichfield Garrick Theatre (%) Lichfield Garrick Theatre 70*% have used the Garrick at some point in time. 15% of respondents were regular users (monthly or more) of the Garrick. Over half (56%) were occasional users. Regular users were most likely to be aged 55-74, more likely to live in urban areas and more likely to live in these wards; Stonnall, St Johns and Boley Park.

Many respondents commented about the Garrick. These included offering “discounts to encourage attendance” , keeping “car parking costs low”, “selling the Garrick”, “stopping funding” and encouraging the Garrick to become “self financing ”.

Council run car parks in Lichfield City

Figure 5.5: Usage of Council run car parks in Lichfield City (%)

Lichfield City Council car parks The majority (80%) use these and over half (56%) use them on a monthly basis or more. Those aged 25-54 year olds and the under 18’s were most likely to be regular users. Those who described themselves as working full or part time, in education or training or not working (by choice) were also more likely to use the car parks in Lichfield.

Comments about them included the need to “avoid rises” and “reduce car parking fees” as the current cost “discourages shoppers”. These were considered important to enable “Lichfield shops and businesses to compete with out of town ventures”. Council run car parks in Chasetown

Figure 5.6: Usage of Council run car parks in Chasetown (%) Chasetown Council run car parks 10% of respondents use these on a monthly basis or more. Respondents were more likely to be under 18, be in education or training and/or live in urban areas, particularly Chasetown.

A few respondents with opposing views commented about car parking charges.

“Don’t charge for Chasetown parking, the small businesses are already suffering enough”.

“Definitely don't charge for Chasetown car park or footfall will reduce further”.

21 Figure 5.7: Usage of Lichfield City toilets (%) Lichfield City toilets

In total, 63% use the Lichfield City toilets with 30% saying that they use them on a monthly basis or more.

Those aged 55 and above are far more likely to use the Lichfield City toilets

Those with a disability are also more likely to use these facilities.

Figure 5.8: Usage of Burntwood toilets (%) Burtwood City toilets

11% have used the toilets in Burntwood and 5% said they have used them regularly.

Respondents who were under the age of 18 and those with disabilities were slightly more likely to have used these facilities.

Comments Comments on toilets tended to be generic in their nature, referencing the facilities provided by the Council overall and not toilets within specific locations. A summary of the comments received is attached below.

Keep the toilets open • “Closing public toilets and expecting visitors to find a cafe when they arrive in town is ridiculous”. • “Toilets are especially important to visitors, to disabled people and to parents with young children”. • “The absence of such facilities might discourage visitors to the town”.

Suggested changes to the current provision • “Charge for toilets”. • Provided there is “the availability of facilities in pubs and shops” and these are “clearly sign posted in public places” , this might be “a suitable alternative”.

22 6. IDEAS TO GENERATE INCOME

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with a wide range of initiatives which could be implemented to generate income. An option of don’t know was available for those who did not feel they could provide a valid response. There was most agreement for charging for car parks in Chasetown and for events such as the Lichfield Proms. The majority disagreed with charging for emptying brown bins and charging for evening parking in Lichfield city centre.

Figure 6.1: Views on ideas to generate income (%)

Average agreement: 48%

Don’t know

Key differences by person type

Disabled parking charges • Those between the ages of 25-64 were more likely to agree with these charges. Those aged 75 and above were least likely to agree (44% agreed). • Those without a disability were most likely agree with charges (60%). 40% of those with a disability agreed with charges.

Small increases to Council Tax • There was a higher level of agreement from urban respondents (54%) than rural respondents (46%). • Those who were retired (58%), working full time (51%) and part time (50%) were most agreeable to small increases. Those in education training (35%), the unemployed (39%) and those aged 34 years of age and below were less likely to agree to small increases in Council Tax.

Evening parking in Lichfield • Those who disagreed with evening parking charges in Lichfield were most likely to be aged 24 and below and/or living in the urban areas of Little Aston (75%), Burntwood (71%) or Hammerwich (68%).

Emptying brown bins • Those aged 55 and above and those who were disabled were least likely to agree that charges for emptying brown bins was acceptable. 23 Comments Parking in Chasetown • Charge for Chasetown parking”.

• “Definitely don't charge for Chasetown car park or footfall will reduce further going against spending on increasing footfall”.

Events e.g. Lichfield Proms • “Spend to invest, e.g. improve facilities to attract more visitors. Improve the links between Lichfield and National Memorial Arboretum e.g. events for visitors as this is under exploited”. • “Publicise events like the Festival and Mysteries and boast about the wonderful park, nationally, not just locally”. • “Increase the use of schools as venues for events such as the recent Lichfield Folk (dance) Festival. Participants in events greatly value the extensive range of facilities offered by KELC and KE School. It seems to me that more extensive use of such facilities, with of course an appropriate fee, would increase the revenue earning power of the facilities and also bring more visitors into the city to spend money in the shops and restaurants”. • “Work with the 'Mercury' to publicise what the council does and advertise events”. • “Agree to a minimal charge (e.g. £1) for Proms in the Park. Still a great event, but not too much money to put people off coming”.

Disabled parking • “Need to keep disabled parking but why not charge?” • “The point of disabled parking is that it is nearer to the location. It does not need to be free. Most of the so called disabled parkers are not disabled and certainly as able to afford as everyone else. I speak as someone whose brother has been disabled since birth and fully agrees with charging”. • “Tighter control on disabled parking as this is often abused”.

Increasing Council Tax • “Increase Council Tax significantly”. • “I think you could increase Council Tax by more than £2 - £5 a year. Explain that the increase would stop you cutting whatever it is that most people want to protect. Be specific”. • “We feel that comprehensive services to the community must be protected. We would be prepared to pay more Council Tax to ensure this”. • “Raise the Council Tax by more than 2% per year but increase the Single Occupancy Discount to 30% progressively”. • “I consider that the Council Tax has to go up by a little each year. Nothing stays the same price year after year”. • “Do more to collect Council Tax arrears”. • “Give the council tax discount where it is truly needed but differentiate more carefully between hardship cases and those who are too fussy and picky over employment choices”. • “I don't know as they are always increasing Council Tax, we never get anything more, so against reducing collections”.

Increasing charges for leisure activities • “Make leisure facilities more accessible and attractive e.g. bus routes, parking, extend opening hours etc. Currently Lichfield does not allow sufficient public swimming times, an activity recommended by doctors to improve health for all ages. Do the above and then you could increase the charges”. • “Encourage more use of leisure facilities during the day time to help keep pensioners active and increase income”. • “Promote leisure centres and seek users for facilities. During day time in winter months, the sports hall, with suitable covering might be used for indoor bowls, for instance. Why not promote an indoor league? Table tennis clubs are another possibility”. • “Charge for parking at leisure centres for staff. Charge more for concession football teams to use pitches for the season ”. • “Promote leisure centres for more private hire e.g. King Edwards has a great suite and bar and large hall which is good for clubs etc.”. • “Friary Leisure Centre could be more efficiently staffed”. 24 Evening parking in Lichfield • “It would be a very bad idea to charge for car parks after 6.00 pm as many people who currently come into Lichfield in the evening would go somewhere else. I know I would!”. • “I feel strongly that it would be wrong to increase parking costs or charge for parking after 6:30. This would stop people visiting Lichfield, including local people, many of whom visit Lichfield restaurants, pubs or Garrick theatre in the evening”. • “Car park charging in the evening is an ok idea but may be set the charge to £1 for the duration so it will not put people off coming into Lichfield of an evening”. • “Charge evening/night time parking to avoid drink driving”. • “I definitely think you should charge for parking in the evening”. • “A standard £1 parking charge could be introduced for Garrick evening parking. This should be fixed so not to harm Garrick attendances”.

Emptying the brown bins • “Less frequent emptying of brown bins Dec to April”. • “Brown bins once a month every two months in winter”. • “Need brown bins collected once a month during the winter only”. • “I feel charging people to use their brown bins will only encourage them to use their black bins more, hence more landfill! I think it would be more appropriate to charge people to use black bins”. • “Emptying brown bins and composting should be a given as it is the only environmentally based service that you provide and even then it isn't efficient. The service is sometimes delayed”. • “Protect brown bin otherwise there will be dumping, fly tipping and pests/vermin”. • “You mention charging for the emptying of brown bins but you do not mention the revenue you receive back from selling the compost. Why charge for brown bins but we can have any amount of blue bins. These bins all benefit the council in their recycling performance”.

25 7. IDEAS TO SAVE MONEY

Twenty initiatives to save money have been suggested by Lichfield District Council and respondents were asked whether they ‘agreed’ or ‘disagreed’ with each of the initiatives. An option of ‘don’t know’ was available for those who did not feel they could offer a valid response.

There was overwhelming support to stop the chairman’s car/driver (90% agreed this should be cut). Reducing the number of district councillors was also popular with the majority of respondents (81% agreed the number could be cut). Stopping the monitoring of dog fouling and reducing street cleaning received the least support. Only 11% and 22% respectively agreed that these services should be cut.

Figure 7.1: Agreement with ideas to save money (%) Average agreement: 52% More support for cuts

Less support for cuts

NB: The average agreement is calculated by adding up all the agreement percent for each service listed and dividing this by the total number of services.

Key differences by person type Stopping the chairman’s car/driver There was high support for cuts from the majority of people. There were no significant differences by person type.

Reduce the number of district councillors There was a steady increase in agreement for cuts with age (53% of under 18’s agreed with cuts and this rose to 87% of those who were 75 and above year of age).

Merge more services/become a unitary There was a steady increase in agreement with this by age (51% of 18-24 year olds agreed). This rose to 77% of 75 and above year olds). 26

Cutting back subsidies to the Garrick

By age, the 35 and above year olds were most supportive of cutting back subsidies to the Garrick. Those with disabilities were more keen to cut subsidies to the Garrick (76% with disabilities agreed with cuts, compared to 69% of those without).

Stop managing developmental projects Those aged 55 and above were more keen to stop managing development projects such as play areas than their younger counterparts were. There was also more agreement for this from respondents living in urban areas (72%) than rural areas (61%).

Don’t give charities full business rate relief Those aged 55 and above were more likely to agree that charities should not be given full business rate relief. Urban respondents were also more likely to agree that charities should not be given this (63%) than rural respondents were (53%).

Transfer leisure centres Disabled respondents were more in favour of transferring leisure centres to a private management operator or trust. 62% of disabled respondents were in favour of this compared to 54% of respondents who did not have a disability. Regular users of leisure centres (monthly or more) were more unsupportive of a transfer to a private operator (31% of users agreed. 67% of non users agreed).

Take longer to process planning applications There is more agreement for taking longer to process planning applications in urban areas (56%) than rural areas (48%).

Transfer parks, open spaces and countryside Transferring parks, out door sports facilities and areas of countryside to parish councils, sports clubs or voluntary organisations was supported more by respondents from rural areas (58%) than in urban areas (49%).

Reduce council tax discounts to the Of Working Age (OWA) population More respondents with disabilities were supportive of this (56%) than those without were (50%).

Close toilets Agreement with this varied drastically by age. The youngest age group (the under 18 year olds) were most in agreement with closing public toilets (74%) whilst the oldest age group (the 75 and above year olds) were least inclined to say the same (24%).

Reduce CCTV coverage Disabled respondents were more keen to see cuts in CCTV—45% of disabled respondents supported this compared to 40% of respondents without a disability.

Stop/reduce large grants Disabled respondents were more keen to stop/reduce large grants (44%) than respondents without a disability were (38%).

Less parks/green areas maintenance Maintaining district run parks and green areas to a lesser frequency was supported more by rural respondents (38%) than urban respondents (30%).

Stop or reduce small grants Disabled respondents were far more likely to agree that small grants should be stopped or reduced (41% agreed) than respondents without a disability were (28%).

27 Give King Edward and Friary Grange back to the schools

• Users of leisure centres were far les likely to agree with handing these back to King Edward and Friary Grange (46% of users agreed compared to 73% of non users). • Those with disabilities were keen to see these handed back to schools (79% with disabilities agreed with this compared to 62% of those without).

Comments • “Involve communities in services such as maintenance, street cleaning and gritting. Consider the use of volunteers, the third sector, people who are out of work and/or people doing community service.” • “Consider using alternative service providers, if they are better value for money.” • “Increase the number of volunteers who give their time to help with maintenance of parks.” • “Dog fouling is still a problem, bigger fines.”

28 8. OTHER IDEAS

The word cloud (below) shows the mostly frequently occurring themes from all respondent answers to the final survey question: ‘Do you have any other ideas about how we could do things differently, including any positive steps we could take to reduce costs of our service or increase our income? ’ The size of the text in Figure 8.1 relates directly to the number of responses received about a theme. For example, more responses were received about the themes of ‘parking’ and ‘bins’ than any other themes.

Figure 8.1: Frequently occurring themes outlined in the ‘other ideas’ section

Many of the respondents took this opportunity to reiterate or to further expand on some of the suggestions from the survey about how costs could be reduced; these are the issues that are particularly important to them.

Reducing costs

Ways in which the council could reduce their costs include: • Involve communities in services such as maintenance, street cleaning and gritting: “Can people be encouraged to keep pathways/gutters in front of property swept?” • To consider the use of volunteers, the third sector, people who are out of work and/or people doing community service to also be involved in street cleaning and maintenance: “Employ people with minor criminal offences or unemployed to clear the many overgrown footpaths.” • Consider using alternative service providers, if they are better value for money, to contract out or outsource: “A lot of the councils work could go to private local companies.” • By becoming more energy efficient, such as by using renewable energies and turning off lights (this includes both street lighting and lighting in public buildings): “Look into the potential for use of renewables.” • Cutting or reducing Councillor pay, expenses and perks: “Don’t pay councillors expenses or fees they should do it for free.” • Reducing the number of Councillors: “ Cut number of Councillors and the number of Councillors on committees.” • Staff pay, terms and conditions, pensions and benefits were mentioned and it was suggested there could be cuts made here and staff (particularly senior, highly paid staff) cutbacks: “Evaluate the roles of workers at the council and remove those who are not effective or worth the money they are paid. Reduce salaries of chief executive, directors and senior Councillors.” • Charging staff and Councillors for car parking: “Charge for parking in the council car park for staff and Councillors.” 29 • Making the council more publically accountable: “More accountability for money they spend, published information and what it’s achieved”. • Reducing waste, red tape and bureaucracy: “Red tape!! Too much red tape.” • Sharing or merging with other authorities to achieve economies of scale: “Centralise all back office services in Staffordshire or possibly with the West Midlands or even nationally.” • Consider the necessity of twinning: “How much money does twinning cities cost? Not necessary.” • “Just to treat public money very carefully - Budgeting as you would your own household bills - looking at each component in detail and make as many savings as is sensibly possible.”

Increasing income

Suggestions about how the council could do this include:

• Charging for services such as processing planning and building applications: “Checking new building/ extensions - could this be charged for?” • Investing in the High Street, by reducing business rates and rents in order to encourage more shops and businesses to open, in place of empty ones: “Getting income in through tourists, but this would have to be by way of encouraging more shops in with an incentive of lower rates.” • Encouraging more tourists and visitors: “As for attracting tourists to the historic city of Lichfield the planning decisions seem to have been taken to lessen its attraction …. If the council wants advice on how to run things, look to towns such as Nantwich. It still has a viable town centre which is not full of betting shops and estate agents.” “It is important to attract visitors and residents into the city so cutbacks that may affect this should be taken carefully.” • Charging for empty premises: “Charge business rates to all empty premises.” • Renting out public buildings in the evenings and at weekends to increase revenue: “Could you rent your spaces in the evenings?” • Selling services such as print and design: “If you have a print and design unit open it up to business and public use.” • Seeking sponsorship: “Seek commercial sponsorship for maintaining assets.” • Increasing fines, for instance for dog fouling, dropping litter, fly tipping and cycling on pavements were all suggested as ways which would generate more income: “Issue fines for dog fouling, litter and anti-social behaviour.” • Ensuring that all rent and Council Tax arrears is paid/collected: “Do more to collect Council Tax arrears.” • A small increase in Council Tax in order to protect services in particular for the most vulnerable: “A couple of pounds on everyone’s rates per month would not make a huge difference to them, I speak as a pensioner with very little spare cash but I still feel this would be a fairer way of dealing with this situation.” • Selling plants and compost to the public: “Sell surplus flowers and plants produced at Beacon Park.” • Allowing recycling centres to sell items which are taken there: “Let recycling centres sell donated items to save them being put in landfill and to raise revenue.” • Making better use of technology to communicate and provide customer services to residents: “Stop sending letters, use email which is more efficient and environmentally friendly e.g. Intouch and all elections material, planning notifications etc.” (However, this view was not shared by everyone “Stop expecting everyone to have the internet.” )

A general observation from analysing these comments was that there was a public perception that councils are perceived to be inefficient and wasteful. Many felt that there was duplication of effort and roles and there was a questioning of the need for so many different tiers/levels of local government.

30 APPENDIX 1: RESPONDENT PROFILE

Urban/rural: Gender: Survey results MYE 2012 Survey SCC Mid year estimate results No’s. % % No’s. % %

Male 523 47% 49% Urban (excluding 696 67% 41% large market Female 581 53% 51% towns) Rural (Town and 346 33% 59% Age: Fringe, Village, Hamlet & Isolated Dwellings) Survey results MYE 2012 Mid year estimate Status: No’s. % % Survey 18-24 44 4% 7% results 25-34 70 6% 10% No’s. % 35-54 343 30% 13% Working full time 328 29.6% 55-64 225 20% 15% Working part time 181 16.4% 65-74 313 28% 13% In education/training 29 2.6% 75+ 121 11% 21% Unemployed/looking for 13 1.2% work Disability : Long term sick or disa- 17 1.5% Survey results Census bled 2011 Retired 484 43.7% No’s. % % Not working 42 3.8% Yes 156 14% 18% Other 13 1.2% No 963 86% 82%

Ethnicity: Survey Census Survey Census results 2011 results 2011

No’s. % % No’s. % % White British 1058 95.6% 94.6% Black/Black British - 1 0.1% 0.1% African White Irish 7 0.6% 0.6% Black/Black British - 2 0.2% 0.3% Caribbean Eastern European 2 0.2% N/A Multiple/Mixed - 0 0.0% 0.5% white & black Caribbean Asian/Asian British - 3 0.3% 0.9% Multiple/Mixed - 3 0.3% 0.1% Indian white & black African Asian/Asian British - 0 0.0% 0.2% Multiple/Mixed - 3 0.3% 0.3% Pakistani white & Asian Asian/Asian British - 0 0.0% 0.1% Other 28 2.5% 0.1% Bangladeshi

Asian/Asian British - 0 0.0% 0.2% 31 Chinese Ward: MY12 (Experimental ward estimates)

Ward No’s. % MYE: 2012 Ward No’s. % MYE: 2012 Mid year estimate Mid year estimate

All Saints 22 1.9% 3% Hammerwich 41 3.6% 3%

Alrewas and 71 6.2% 6% Highfield 53 4.6% 4% Fradley Armitage with 80 7.0% 5% Kings Bromley 11 1.0% 2% Handacre Boley Park 112 9.8% 5% Leomansley 80 7.0% 7%

Boney Hay 17 1.5% 3% Little Aston 16 1.4% 3%

Bourne Vale 6 0.5% 2% Longdon 25 2.2% 2%

Burntwood 28 2.4% 3% Mease and Tame 20 1.7% 4% Central Chadsmead 34 3.0% 4% Shenstone 58 5.1% 3%

Chase Terrace 24 2.1% 5% St Johns 103 9.0% 6%

Chasetown 18 1.6% 4% Stonnall 2 0.2% 2%

Colton And 6 0.5% 2% Stowe 63 5.5% 5% Mavesyn

Curborough 47 4.1% 5% Summerfield 27 2.4% 4%

Fazeley 12 1.0% 5% Whittington 66 5.7% 3%

32 APPENDIX 11: Fit for the Future Questionnaire Template

33

34 APPENDIX III: WARD LEVEL ANALYSIS

The importance of services that have to be provided: Environmental services by ward*

Waste Rubbish/fly Cleanliness/ Cleanliness/ Noise collection / tipping litter picks safety of pollution recycling restaurants complaints

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 21 100% 21 100% 20 95% 19 90% 20 95% Chasetown 17 94% 17 94% 17 94% 16 94% 16 89%

Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 6 100% 6 100% 4 67% 6 100% 6 100%

Curborough 47 100% 46 98% 44 94% 43 91% 44 96%

Fazeley 12 100% 12 100% 12 100% 11 92% 12 100%

Hammerwich 41 100% 40 100% 39 95% 38 93% 37 90%

Highfield 53 100% 51 98% 51 96% 52 98% 50 94% Kings Bromley 11 100% 11 100% 11 100% 10 91% 8 73%

Leomansley 78 100% 78 100% 77 100% 73 92% 72 92% Little Aston 15 94% 15 94% 14 88% 16 100% 15 94%

Longdon 25 100% 25 100% 24 96% 23 92% 21 84%

Alrewas and Fradley 70 100% 70 100% 64 94% 65 93% 64 91%

Mease and Tame 18 90% 18 90% 15 75% 19 95% 18 90%

Shenstone 54 95% 55 96% 50 89% 54 95% 51 89%

St Johns 103 100% 102 99% 99 97% 103 100% 98 95%

Stonnall 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%

Stowe 62 98% 63 100% 61 98% 61 97% 60 95%

Summerfield 25 96% 25 96% 24 96% 24 92% 24 92%

Whittington 65 98% 65 98% 64 97% 63 95% 60 92%

Armitage with Handacre 79 99% 80 100% 77 97% 78 98% 73 91%

Boley Park 112 100% 112 100% 111 100% 108 98% 103 93%

Boney Hay 16 100% 15 94% 13 81% 15 94% 15 94%

Bourne Vale 6 100% 6 100% 6 100% 6 100% 5 83%

Burntwood Central 27 100% 27 100% 27 100% 27 100% 26 96%

Chadsmead 34 100% 34 100% 34 100% 33 97% 33 97%

Chase Terrace 24 100% 22 96% 24 100% 24 100% 21 88%

*Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 35 The importance of services that have to be provided: The importance of Planning services by ward*

Ensuring Production of Planning Planning developers invest the local plan inspection permission locally

No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 20 95% 18 86% 20 95% 20 95% Chasetown 14 78% 10 56% 17 94% 16 89%

Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 6 100% 5 83% 6 100% 6 100% Curborough 41 89% 35 78% 40 89% 42 91%

Fazeley 12 100% 11 92% 12 100% 12 100% Hammerwich 39 98% 36 88% 36 90% 35 85%

Highfield 50 94% 43 83% 48 91% 52 98% Kings Bromley 9 82% 11 100% 10 91% 10 91%

Leomansley 69 91% 52 69% 66 86% 66 86% Little Aston 13 81% 11 69% 13 81% 13 81%

Longdon 24 96% 23 92% 21 84% 20 80% Alrewas and Fradley 58 84% 50 71% 58 84% 58 83%

Mease and Tame 16 80% 16 80% 16 80% 15 75%

Shenstone 48 84% 37 65% 47 82% 48 84%

St Johns 97 94% 83 84% 96 93% 95 92%

Stonnall 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%

Stowe 57 90% 52 83% 57 90% 56 89%

Summerfield 22 85% 19 73% 21 81% 20 77%

Whittington 62 94% 52 79% 62 95% 60 91%

Armitage with Handacre 76 95% 65 82% 76 95% 71 89%

Boley Park 100 90% 89 80% 100 91% 97 87%

Boney Hay 14 88% 12 75% 15 94% 14 88%

Bourne Vale 6 100% 6 100% 6 100% 6 100%

Burntwood Central 24 89% 24 89% 25 93% 25 93%

Chadsmead 29 88% 28 82% 31 91% 31 91%

Chase Terrace 22 92% 21 88% 22 92% 21 88%

*Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 36 The importance of services that have to be provided: The importance of Community services by ward*

Community Website Customer safety activities services services

No. % No. % No. % All Saints 21 100% 18 90% 19 90%

Chasetown 18 100% 14 78% 13 76% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 5 83% 4 80% 5 83%

Curborough 42 91% 34 76% 32 70% Fazeley 11 100% 12 100% 12 100%

Hammerwich 41 100% 34 85% 35 85% Highfield 52 98% 46 87% 39 74%

Kings Bromley 11 100% 9 82% 9 82% Leomansley 72 94% 55 71% 55 71%

Little Aston 13 81% 11 69% 11 69% Longdon 20 80% 19 76% 20 80%

Alrewas and Fradley 61 90% 47 68% 45 64%

Mease and Tame 16 80% 13 65% 15 75%

Shenstone 52 93% 40 73% 37 65%

St Johns 97 95% 92 90% 87 85%

Stonnall 2 100% 1 50% 2 100%

Stowe 59 94% 53 84% 54 86%

Summerfield 24 92% 20 77% 21 81%

Whittington 63 95% 51 77% 51 77%

Armitage with Handacre 77 96% 63 80% 62 78%

Boley Park 106 95% 90 81% 88 79%

Boney Hay 16 100% 11 69% 13 81%

Bourne Vale 6 100% 6 100% 6 100%

Burntwood Central 26 96% 18 67% 24 89%

Chadsmead 33 97% 24 71% 29 85%

Chase Terrace 21 88% 19 79% 18 75%

*Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 37 The importance of services that have to be provided: The importance of Elections, Licensing and services which support people by ward*

Licensing— Elections Disability Housing and Council tax events/ home homelessness discounts businesses adaptation support grants

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 18 86% 18 86% 19 90% 18 86% 15 71%

Chasetown 13 72% 15 88% 16 89% 14 78% 8 44% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 5 100% 4 67% 5 83% 4 67% 6 100%

Curborough 44 94% 36 80% 41 89% 43 91% 41 89% Fazeley 11 92% 10 83% 12 100% 12 100% 12 100%

Hammerwich 39 98% 36 88% 41 100% 37 90% 28 70% Highfield 50 94% 44 85% 51 96% 47 89% 41 79%

Kings Bromley 11 100% 9 82% 10 91% 11 100% 10 91%

Leomansley 71 90% 66 85% 65 84% 65 83% 52 68%

Little Aston 14 88% 14 88% 15 94% 15 94% 13 81%

Longdon 20 80% 20 80% 24 96% 22 92% 22 88%

Alrewas and Fradley 64 93% 52 74% 62 89% 55 79% 49 70%

Mease and Tame 17 85% 13 65% 20 100% 16 84% 17 85%

Shenstone 48 86% 45 80% 53 95% 49 88% 40 71%

St Johns 97 95% 93 90% 95 92% 92 89% 84 82%

Stonnall 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%

Stowe 58 94% 52 84% 52 83% 55 87% 50 79%

Summerfield 23 92% 20 83% 21 81% 24 92% 22 88%

Whittington 60 91% 51 77% 61 92% 55 83% 55 83%

Armitage with Handacre 76 95% 58 73% 73 91% 75 94% 70 88%

Boley Park 109 97% 93 85% 104 94% 96 86% 86 77%

Boney Hay 14 88% 13 81% 16 100% 14 88% 14 88%

Bourne Vale 5 83% 5 100% 4 67% 4 80% 5 83%

Burntwood Central 25 93% 22 81% 27 100% 25 93% 26 96%

Chadsmead 32 94% 29 85% 31 91% 29 85% 28 82%

Chase Terrace 23 96% 18 82% 23 96% 24 100% 22 92%

*Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 38 Discretionary services: % supporting the protection of Environmental Services by ward

Brown bins/ Provision/ Collection of Car parks composting maintenance of bulky waste WC’s

No. % No. % No. % No. % All Saints 18 82% 17 77% 11 50% 17 77%

Chasetown 17 94% 13 72% 9 50% 9 50% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 6 100% 4 67% 3 50% 5 83%

Curborough 39 83% 33 70% 24 51% 26 55% Fazeley 11 92% 11 92% 8 67% 6 50%

Hammerwich 39 95% 27 68% 27 66% 28 68% Highfield 50 94% 34 64% 34 64% 27 51%

Kings Bromley 9 82% 9 82% 7 64% 6 55% Leomansley 66 83% 49 62% 48 60% 46 58%

Little Aston 13 81% 15 94% 11 69% 10 63% Longdon 21 84% 17 68% 14 56% 13 52%

Alrewas and Fradley 62 89% 46 67% 46 67% 41 60%

Mease and Tame 14 70% 13 65% 10 50% 7 35%

Shenstone 49 86% 44 76% 43 75% 30 55%

St Johns 85 83% 85 83% 70 69% 64 62%

Stonnall 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 1 50%

Stowe 53 84% 44 70% 38 61% 31 49%

Summerfield 21 81% 21 81% 16 62% 13 50%

Whittington 58 88% 43 65% 40 61% 37 56%

Armitage with Handacre 68 85% 63 80% 44 55% 43 54%

Boley Park 102 91% 88 79% 68 61% 63 56%

Boney Hay 14 93% 10 63% 10 63% 10 63%

Bourne Vale 5 83% 6 100% 4 67% 4 67%

Burntwood Central 24 86% 16 57% 12 43% 20 71%

Chadsmead 30 88% 27 79% 22 65% 24 71%

Chase Terrace 17 71% 16 67% 8 33% 13 54%

39 Discretionary services: % supporting the protection of Leisure and Cultural Services by ward

Managing parks/ Managing Leisure Protect/ Lichfield open spaces countryside centres/ improve Garrick outdoor historical pitches buildings No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 17 81% 17 81% 13 62% 14 67% 6 29% Chasetown 13 72% 11 61% 11 61% 6 33% 4 22%

Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 2 33% 3 50% 1 17% 3 50% 2 33% Curborough 29 64% 30 65% 20 44% 27 60% 15 33%

Fazeley 8 67% 10 83% 3 25% 9 75% 1 8% Hammerwich 34 83% 34 85% 30 73% 26 67% 13 32%

Highfield 43 81% 37 71% 33 62% 25 47% 13 25% Kings Bromley 5 45% 7 64% 6 55% 5 45% 2 18%

Leomansley 64 81% 48 62% 44 56% 31 39% 23 29% Little Aston 12 75% 9 56% 13 81% 6 38% 6 38%

Longdon 19 76% 18 72% 21 84% 17 68% 10 40%

Alrewas and Fradley 51 73% 54 76% 49 69% 39 56% 27 38%

Mease and Tame 9 45% 13 65% 9 45% 7 35% 6 30%

Shenstone 39 68% 40 69% 30 54% 29 51% 21 36%

St Johns 71 70% 74 72% 62 60% 58 56% 34 33%

Stonnall 2 100% 2 100% 1 100% 2 100% 2 100%

Stowe 43 68% 46 73% 27 44% 32 51% 22 35%

Summerfield 20 77% 19 73% 17 65% 10 38% 7 28%

Whittington 48 73% 51 77% 42 65% 33 51% 23 35%

Armitage with Handacre 57 72% 60 75% 55 69% 46 58% 29 37%

Boley Park 84 75% 68 61% 66 59% 46 41% 36 32%

Boney Hay 10 63% 10 63% 9 56% 5 31% 3 19%

Bourne Vale 4 67% 6 100% 4 67% 6 100% 4 67%

Burntwood Central 19 68% 17 61% 18 64% 10 36% 8 29%

Chadsmead 27 79% 22 65% 21 62% 20 59% 9 26%

Chase Terrace 15 63% 16 67% 11 46% 9 38% 5 21%

40 Discretionary services: % supporting the protection of Community Services by ward

Telephone lines Scooters Customer Advice on Intouch services desk energy

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % All Saints 15 71% 8 36% 13 62% 8 38% 3 14%

Chasetown 6 33% 8 44% 6 33% 4 22% 1 6% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 4 67% 3 50% 4 67% 1 17% 1 17%

Curborough 19 41% 22 47% 15 33% 18 39% 6 14% Fazeley 9 75% 8 67% 5 45% 7 58% 1 8%

Hammerwich 18 44% 22 56% 22 54% 15 38% 9 22% Highfield 22 42% 25 47% 20 38% 13 25% 17 32%

Kings Bromley 5 45% 7 70% 3 27% 3 27% 3 27% Leomansley 27 34% 25 32% 20 26% 16 20% 20 25%

Little Aston 10 63% 4 25% 9 56% 3 19% 4 25% Longdon 10 40% 10 42% 11 44% 6 24% 3 12%

Alrewas and Fradley 39 56% 30 42% 36 51% 23 34% 18 25%

Mease and Tame 10 50% 9 45% 10 50% 6 30% 0 0%

Shenstone 32 56% 31 54% 29 51% 18 32% 11 20%

St Johns 50 50% 51 50% 46 45% 30 29% 25 25%

Stonnall 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0%

Stowe 25 40% 22 35% 21 33% 21 33% 12 19%

Summerfield 15 58% 10 38% 14 54% 10 38% 8 31%

Whittington 24 36% 28 42% 23 35% 15 23% 10 15%

Armitage with Handacre 48 61% 45 56% 48 61% 34 43% 11 14%

Boley Park 53 47% 52 46% 43 38% 26 23% 30 28%

Boney Hay 7 44% 9 56% 5 31% 5 31% 7 44%

Bourne Vale 3 50% 3 50% 2 40% 3 50% 2 33%

Burntwood Central 18 64% 8 29% 14 50% 8 29% 6 21%

Chadsmead 16 47% 13 38% 16 47% 9 27% 14 41%

Chase Terrace 8 33% 13 54% 8 33% 12 50% 3 13%

41 Discretionary services: % supporting the protection of Businesses by ward

Attracting Business Waste/ Town centre tourists to support/advice recycling to support support business businesses

No. % No. % No. % No. % All Saints 14 64% 12 55% 13 59% 13 59%

Chasetown 13 72% 8 44% 11 61% 11 61% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 1 20% 3 60% 5 83% 1 17%

Curborough 25 53% 24 51% 28 61% 20 43% Fazeley 9 75% 3 25% 6 50% 3 25%

Hammerwich 27 68% 27 66% 29 71% 27 66% Highfield 31 58% 29 55% 28 53% 30 57%

Kings Bromley 8 73% 7 64% 6 55% 7 64% Leomansley 46 58% 38 48% 37 46% 35 44%

Little Aston 8 53% 9 56% 7 47% 9 60% Longdon 16 64% 18 75% 12 48% 13 52%

Alrewas and Fradley 41 61% 44 65% 39 55% 40 57%

Mease and Tame 8 40% 6 30% 12 60% 6 30%

Shenstone 39 71% 33 59% 29 52% 28 50%

St Johns 67 65% 67 66% 63 61% 61 61%

Stonnall 1 50% 2 100% 1 50% 2 100%

Stowe 34 54% 27 43% 33 52% 35 56%

Summerfield 16 62% 11 44% 13 50% 14 54%

Whittington 44 67% 44 67% 38 58% 40 61%

Armitage with Handacre 49 61% 55 69% 45 56% 43 54%

Boley Park 69 62% 63 56% 60 54% 61 55%

Boney Hay 5 31% 12 75% 8 50% 5 31%

Bourne Vale 3 50% 4 67% 6 100% 3 50%

Burntwood Central 21 75% 19 68% 14 50% 18 64%

Chadsmead 20 59% 21 62% 15 44% 18 53%

Chase Terrace 14 61% 11 46% 17 71% 9 38%

42 Usage of Lichfield District Council services by ward

Burntwood Friary Grange King Edward leisure centre leisure centre V1 leisure centre

No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 6 27% 0 0% 1 5% Chasetown 8 44% 0 0% 0 0%

Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Curborough 5 11% 4 9% 1 2%

Fazeley 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Hammerwich 20 49% 2 5% 0 0%

Highfield 14 27% 1 2% 0 0%

Kings Bromley 1 9% 1 9% 0 0%

Leomansley 1 1% 14 18% 2 3%

Little Aston 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Longdon 3 12% 3 12% 0 0%

Alrewas and Fradley 5 7% 10 14% 3 4%

Mease and Tame 1 5% 0 0% 1 5%

Shenstone 2 4% 5 9% 3 5%

St Johns 3 3% 14 14% 11 11%

Stonnall 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Stowe 3 5% 9 15% 6 10%

Summerfield 7 27% 0 0% 0 0%

Whittington 1 2% 6 9% 5 8%

Armitage with Handacre 5 6% 5 6% 1 1%

Boley Park 9 8% 19 17% 13 12%

Boney Hay 4 25% 0 0% 0 0

Bourne Vale 0 0% 1 17% 0 0%

Burntwood Central 12 43% 1 4% 0 0%

Chadsmead 1 3% 6 18% 1 3%

Chase Terrace 11 46% 2 8% 2 8%

43 Usage of Lichfield District Council services by ward

Lichfield Garrick Council run car Council run Lichfield City Burntwood Theatre parks in car parks in toilets toilets Lichfield City Chasetown

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 3 14% 10 45% 4 18% 2 9% 0 0% Chasetown 3 17% 10 56% 11 61% 7 39% 2 12% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 0 0% 1 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Curborough 3 7% 26 58% 1 2% 21 46% 1 2% Fazeley 0 0% 2 18% 0 0% 2 18% 0 0% Hammerwich 7 17% 23 56% 18 44% 14 34% 6 15% Highfield 6 11% 38 72% 17 33% 15 28% 5 9% Kings Bromley 1 9% 6 55% 0 0% 2 18% 1 9% Leomansley 15 19% 47 59% 0 0% 27 35% 0 0% Little Aston 2 13% 6 38% 1 6% 4 25% 1 6% Longdon 2 8% 15 60% 1 4% 8 32% 2 8% Alrewas and Fradley 12 17% 42 59% 2 3% 16 23% 2 3% Mease and Tame 1 5% 5 25% 0 0% 2 10% 0 0% Shenstone 5 9% 40 70% 0 0% 11 19% 0 0% St Johns 28 27% 50 49% 1 1% 41 40% 1 1% Stonnall 1 50% 2 100% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% Stowe 10 16% 25 41% 1 2% 21 34% 0 0% Summerfield 5 19% 15 60% 13 52% 8 32% 5 20% Whittington 6 9% 35 53% 1 2% 11 17% 3 5% Armitage with Handacre 8 10% 51 64% 4 5% 21 26% 0 0% Boley Park 22 20% 58 52% 0 0% 33 29% 1 1% Boney Hay 1 6% 8 50% 2 13% 3 19% 3 19% Bourne Vale 0 0% 4 67% 0 0% 2 33% 0 0% Burntwood Central 3 11% 22 79% 14 50% 10 36% 5 18% Chadsmead 4 12% 16 47% 1 3% 14 41% 0 0% Chase Terrace 2 8% 17 74% 8 35% 10 42% 10 42%

44 Ideas to generate income: % who agreed with ideas by ward

Parking in Events e.g. Disabled Increasing Increase Evening Emptying Chasetown Lichfield Proms Parking council tax charges for parking in brown bins leisure Lichfield activities

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 12 55% 12 55% 14 64% 7 33% 8 36% 7 32% 3 14%

Chasetown 5 28% 12 67% 7 39% 4 22% 7 39% 6 33% 3 18% Colton And 5 100% 5 83% 3 50% 4 67% 3 50% 4 67% 1 17% Mavesyn Ridware Curborough 28 60% 26 57% 35 76% 31 67% 26 57% 20 43% 14 30% Fazeley 8 67% 11 92% 9 75% 6 50% 8 67% 7 58% 1 8%

Hammerwich 14 34% 31 76% 21 53% 21 51% 20 49% 13 32% 8 20%

Highfield 29 55% 32 62% 32 62% 38 72% 19 36% 19 37% 15 28%

Kings Bromley 11 100% 6 55% 6 55% 6 55% 7 64% 6 55% 6 55%

Leomansley 58 73% 43 54% 51 65% 39 50% 38 48% 32 40% 24 30%

Little Aston 7 47% 9 56% 7 44% 7 44% 5 31% 3 19% 2 13%

Longdon 15 60% 18 72% 12 48% 12 48% 11 44% 8 32% 6 24%

Alrewas and 43 61% 45 63% 37 53% 29 41% 35 49% 30 42% 20 28% Fradley Mease and Tame 14 70% 15 75% 10 50% 10 50% 8 40% 10 50% 7 35%

Shenstone 39 67% 37 65% 26 45% 29 50% 28 48% 24 41% 13 23%

St Johns 68 67% 62 61% 58 57% 57 55% 40 40% 27 26% 36 35%

Stonnall 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0%

Stowe 39 64% 28 45% 35 56% 36 58% 33 53% 24 41% 22 35%

Summerfield 12 48% 18 69% 16 62% 12 46% 7 27% 11 42% 8 31%

Whittington 42 64% 42 65% 39 59% 34 52% 23 35% 23 35% 14 22%

Armitage with 40 51% 36 46% 35 44% 29 36% 20 25% 23 29% 16 20% Handacre

Boley Park 76 68% 66 59% 64 57% 70 63% 55 50% 37 33% 33 29%

Boney Hay 6 38% 9 56% 9 56% 5 31% 5 31% 7 44% 3 19%

Bourne Vale 5 83% 2 33% 3 50% 3 50% 4 67% 4 67% 2 33%

Burntwood 7 25% 18 64% 15 54% 11 39% 8 29% 7 25% 3 11% Central Chadsmead 25 74% 17 50% 23 68% 18 53% 13 38% 11 32% 2 6%

Chase Terrace 13 54% 16 67% 11 48% 11 46% 7 29% 10 42% 13 54%

Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 45 Ideas to save money: % who agreed with ideas to save money by ward

Stop chairman’s Reduce no. of Merge more Cut back the Stop managing Reduce Give King car/driver district services/ Garrick development opening hours Edward and councillors become a subsidy projects (face to face Friary Grange unitary and phone) back to schools

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 20 91% 15 68% 11 50% 17 77% 13 59% 10 45% 14 64%

Chasetown 17 94% 16 89% 12 67% 13 72% 11 61% 12 67% 15 83% Colton&Mavesyn 5 83% 5 83% 4 80% 5 83% 5 83% 2 33% 3 50% Ridware Curborough 37 80% 34 74% 35 78% 34 72% 34 74% 33 70% 30 65% Fazeley 11 92% 7 64% 6 50% 10 83% 8 67% 6 50% 7 58%

Hammerwich 39 95% 28 68% 22 55% 30 73% 29 73% 19 53% 32 78%

Highfield 47 89% 44 83% 45 85% 39 76% 38 73% 34 65% 45 85%

Kings Bromley 9 82% 8 73% 8 73% 7 64% 6 55% 8 73% 6 60%

Leomansley 78 99% 69 87% 63 81% 55 69% 63 80% 64 80% 51 65%

Little Aston 14 93% 13 87% 12 80% 8 53% 10 67% 10 67% 10 71%

Longdon 21 84% 19 76% 19 79% 18 72% 15 60% 16 64% 16 64%

Alrewas&Fradley 59 83% 56 79% 51 72% 42 59% 48 70% 42 59% 43 61%

Mease and Tame 19 95% 16 80% 16 80% 14 70% 16 80% 13 68% 20 100%

Shenstone 52 90% 48 83% 44 77% 40 70% 36 63% 42 74% 33 58%

St Johns 93 90% 87 84% 79 77% 62 62% 71 70% 67 66% 50 49%

Stonnall 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 100% 0 0% 2 100%

Stowe 55 87% 56 90% 46 75% 39 63% 47 75% 43 69% 38 60%

Summerfield 22 85% 21 78% 20 74% 22 81% 20 74% 10 40% 20 74%

Whittington 57 88% 53 80% 48 74% 46 70% 29 45% 46 70% 33 50%

Armitage with 75 94% 65 82% 53 67% 52 66% 47 59% 53 66% 56 70% Handacre

Boley Park 99 88% 91 81% 91 81% 77 70% 84 75% 83 76% 64 57%

Boney Hay 15 94% 9 56% 8 50% 12 75% 10 63% 10 63% 11 69%

Bourne Vale 5 83% 4 67% 3 50% 2 33% 3 50% 2 33% 2 40%

Burntwood 27 96% 23 82% 16 57% 23 82% 25 89% 20 71% 20 71% Central Chadsmead 30 88% 30 88% 20 61% 27 79% 21 66% 22 65% 20 59%

Chase Terrace 20 83% 16 67% 20 83% 18 75% 12 50% 17 71% 18 75%

Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 46 Ideas to save money: % who agreed with ideas to save money by ward

Don’t give Transfer leisure Take longer to Transfer Reduce c/tax Close toilets Reduce CCTV charities full centres process parks/open discounts for coverage business rate planning spaces/ Of Working relief applications countryside Age pop.

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 16 73% 11 50% 12 55% 9 45% 12 55% 13 59% 10 45%

Chasetown 11 61% 6 33% 7 39% 8 44% 12 67% 9 50% 6 33% Colton And 4 67% 6 100% 2 33% 4 67% 4 67% 2 33% 3 50% Mavesyn Ridware Curborough 31 67% 22 47% 25 56% 20 43% 22 47% 15 33% 20 43% Fazeley 3 25% 5 42% 9 75% 7 58% 4 33% 4 33% 5 42%

Hammerwich 27 66% 23 59% 15 38% 20 49% 24 59% 15 37% 16 39%

Highfield 38 72% 33 62% 32 60% 29 55% 30 58% 27 51% 22 43%

Kings Bromley 4 36% 9 82% 8 73% 5 50% 7 70% 6 55% 6 55%

Leomansley 52 65% 45 56% 50 63% 34 43% 47 59% 36 45% 27 34%

Little Aston 11 79% 7 47% 6 40% 10 67% 9 60% 6 40% 6 40%

Longdon 11 44% 13 52% 14 56% 12 48% 10 40% 11 44% 11 44%

Alrewas and 38 54% 39 55% 35 49% 43 61% 36 51% 31 44% 29 41% Fradley Mease and Tame 11 55% 13 68% 8 40% 14 70% 14 70% 11 55% 9 47%

Shenstone 30 53% 29 53% 23 41% 35 61% 26 47% 19 34% 25 45%

St Johns 59 58% 59 58% 61 60% 46 45% 54 52% 29 28% 39 38%

Stonnall 2 100% 2 100% 1 50% 2 100% 1 50% 0 0% 1 50%

Stowe 36 58% 41 66% 36 58% 31 50% 30 49% 19 30% 27 44%

Summerfield 15 58% 13 48% 13 50% 16 62% 13 48% 15 56% 9 35%

Whittington 33 50% 34 52% 29 45% 37 56% 32 48% 25 38% 15 23%

Armitage with 46 58% 48 60% 43 54% 45 56% 37 46% 38 48% 35 44% Handacre Boley Park 68 61% 60 54% 59 53% 54 49% 51 46% 44 39% 50 45%

Boney Hay 10 63% 8 50% 7 44% 10 63% 8 50% 10 63% 6 38%

Bourne Vale 3 50% 3 50% 3 50% 3 50% 2 33% 1 17% 3 50%

Burntwood 18 64% 13 46% 17 61% 16 57% 14 50% 14 50% 12 43% Central Chadsmead 25 74% 12 36% 20 61% 17 50% 12 35% 8 25% 14 41%

Chase Terrace 13 57% 11 46% 13 54% 11 46% 14 61% 14 58% 7 29%

Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 47 Ideas to save money: % who agreed with ideas to save money by ward

Stop/reduce Less parks/ Stop/reduce Stop Reduce street Stop large grants green areas small grants community cleaning monitoring maintenance transport dog fouling

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Saints 7 33% 9 41% 3 14% 4 18% 4 18% 1 5%

Chasetown 7 39% 5 28% 6 33% 6 33% 5 28% 1 6% Colton And Mavesyn Ridware 3 50% 4 67% 3 50% 0 0% 1 17% 1 17%

Curborough 14 30% 16 34% 14 30% 11 24% 13 28% 4 9% Fazeley 3 25% 3 25% 1 8% 3 25% 1 8% 1 8%

Hammerwich 15 37% 15 38% 14 34% 12 30% 11 28% 2 5%

Highfield 20 38% 9 17% 18 34% 16 31% 14 26% 3 6%

Kings Bromley 4 40% 5 45% 4 36% 4 36% 5 45% 1 10%

Leomansley 37 47% 23 29% 31 39% 29 37% 19 24% 10 13%

Little Aston 7 47% 3 20% 2 14% 6 40% 5 36% 4 27%

Longdon 8 32% 8 32% 10 40% 7 28% 4 16% 3 12%

Alrewas and Fradley 24 34% 25 36% 23 32% 20 28% 13 19% 10 14%

Mease and Tame 13 65% 9 45% 4 20% 6 32% 7 35% 1 5%

Shenstone 15 27% 23 40% 11 19% 16 29% 11 19% 11 19%

St Johns 38 38% 25 24% 26 25% 26 25% 12 12% 10 10%

Stonnall 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Stowe 25 40% 19 31% 11 17% 8 13% 14 22% 9 14%

Summerfield 6 22% 7 27% 4 15% 5 19% 1 4% 2 7%

Whittington 31 48% 24 36% 19 29% 24 36% 16 24% 5 8%

Armitage with Handacre 29 36% 28 35% 20 25% 21 27% 23 29% 11 14%

Boley Park 48 43% 32 29% 40 36% 31 28% 16 14% 13 12%

Boney Hay 7 44% 6 38% 5 33% 2 13% 5 31% 0 0%

Bourne Vale 2 33% 3 50% 2 33% 2 33% 2 33% 0 0%

Burntwood Central 8 29% 9 32% 9 32% 9 32% 6 22% 0 0%

Chadsmead 13 38% 14 41% 12 38% 9 26% 6 18% 2 6%

Chase Terrace 8 33% 9 38% 7 29% 4 17% 7 29% 3 13%

Numbers and per cents include all those who said services were ‘important’ and services were ‘important but not used’. 48