East Community Needs Survey – Summary Results Overview

Osmund Fields & Rowbarrow Residents Association (OFRRA) November 2011

Executive summary

Following the planning application submitted by the East Harnham Community Association (EHCA) in November 2010, local residents voiced significant concerns over the new plans, and questioned whether any new centre was wanted or needed by the community, and if it would be financially viable. It was agreed that further data was needed to establish if there was a need for a new centre.

The Osmund Fields and Rowbarrow Resident’s Association (OFRRA) worked with EHCA to develop a questionnaire that would be given to local residents. The survey was agreed by both parties in the presence of the council, but EHCA later opted out of the survey process; OFRRA then ran the agreed survey without any content changes. The results showed that 74.6% of local residents did not want a new hall built, and would rather the S.106 funds were spent on enhancing existing facilities. Furthermore, only 5.4% have used facilities in the last 12 months and intend to keep using facilities in the next 12 months and want a new centre at Osmund Fields. This appears to suggest that even amongst those who expressed a desire for a new centre, there are a significant proportion who are unlikely to make use of it if it were built.

The council can have 95% confidence that the results of this survey of 370 households represents the views of East Harnham residents with no greater than a +/- 3.75% margin of error. We call on the council to respect the wishes of local residents and work with the local community and the existing centres to best to meet the needs of the community.

1. Osmund Fields & Rowbarrow Residents Association (OFRRA)

1.1. In January 2011, the new residents of Osmund Fields and the existing Rowbarrow resident’s association were drawn together as a result of a planning application for a new community centre on the Green at Osmund Fields.

1.2. On the 7th September 2011 this joint team was formalised at the inaugural AGM as the Osmund Fields and Rowbarrow Resident’s Association (OFRRA). At the AGM, the official constitution was adopted, and the 2011-2012 Executive Committee was elected.

1 2. History of the Process and Composition of the Survey

2.1. The East Harnham Community Association (EHCA) was formed in 2003 with the objectives1 stated below:

1. To promote the benefit of the inhabitants of East Harnham and the neighbourhood together defined by Britford land and Coombe road without distinction of sex, sexual orientation ,race or of political, religious or other opinions, by associating together the said inhabitants and the local authorities, voluntary and other organisations in a common effort to advance education and to provide facilities in the interests of social welfare for recreation and leisure time occupation with the object of improving the conditions of life for the said inhabitants;

2. To establish, or secure the establishment of, a community centre and to maintain and manage the same (whether alone or in co-operation with any local authority or other person or body) in furtherance of these objects.

3. To promote such other charitable purposes as may from time to time be determined.

2.2. In 2009, the EHCA conducted a postal survey to 1100 homes within East Harnham and received 81 responses, of which 70 were in favour of a new centre being built. Following on from this, in November 2010 the EHCA filed a planning application2 for a new community centre on the Green at Osmund Fields. Over 100 local residents voiced concerns around many aspects of the plans; due process was not followed, and many local residents questioned whether another centre was actually needed. The planning application was subsequently withdrawn as a result of a technicality. At this point EHCA agreed to meet with local residents.

2.3. A joint meeting was held on 25 January between OFRRA and the EHCA. Brian Dalton of and Council and Cheryl Hill of Salisbury City Council also attended. At this meeting, it was mutually agreed that there was a requirement to undertake a new survey to establish the “need” amongst East Harnham residents for a new community centre as the postal survey in 2009 was carried out before there were any residents at Osmund Fields and the previous response rate was only 7.4%; too low to be considered a reliable indicator of community opinion. There was general agreement that a new and more comprehensive survey should be undertaken prior to any further planning application being filed.

2.4. David Scrace, Chair of the EHCA, stated that he would ask their architect to halt work in the interim and stated to The Salisbury Journal on 17th March:

1 The objectives cited are those formally logged with the charities commission

2 Planning application number S/2010/1717

2 “It may be that we come up with a need for a smaller centre or it may be that we discover that the community has no need for another community centre at all. We are open to see what the survey reveals”.

2.5. The format, content and methodology of the final survey was the subject of considerable constructive debate between the OFRRA and EHCA over the period from April to August 2011. To ensure the survey created was balanced and fair from both sides, the process of agreeing the questions, content and areas to be surveyed was conducted in the presence of Annie Scadden of Salisbury City Council. The approach and areas to be surveyed were also validated with Richard Hughes (Senior Planner, Salisbury) of . The survey took several months to plan, to ensure that all stakeholders were in agreement on the content. In particular it was important to ensure the appropriate uses of the Section 106 funds were agreed with the Council. The allocable uses were confirmed by Richard Hughes3. The final format and questions were agreed by all parties at a meeting in the Guildhall between the OFRRA, EHCA and Annie Scadden on 12th August. The EHCA acknowledged agreement to the survey content via an email from David Stone dated 16th August.

2.6. On 23rd August, EHCA opted to withdraw from the process and the OFRRA decided to conduct the survey at its own expense, in order to ensure that a valid body of data was collected prior to any further use of public funds and that the community view was thoroughly documented. To ensure validity, the same survey content that had been agreed on the 23rd August was used without change (apart from the removal of the EHCA title from the questionnaire).

3. Methodology

3.1. The guiding principle during the design and conduct of the survey was how best to capture the needs of the community in an unbiased way without diversifying into other strands, such as overall size or capacity for a hall if it were built. It must therefore be clearly emphasised that the questionnaire was designed to simply address whether or not there is a need for a new community hall in East Harnham.

3.2. Each of the questions asked within the questionnaire were specifically designed to complement each other, as this provides greater scope for analysis, whilst also having the ability in some areas to be analysed independently. Collection of personal details, resulting in being able to identify individuals or households by name was deemed inappropriate on data protection grounds. In order to identify neighbourhood areas, it was decided to colour code questionnaires to allow further statistical analysis. Permission was also sought from those surveyed to allow their address (without their name) to be included on a register to allow the council to confirm that OFRRA surveyed the stated areas.

3 Email Hughes/Stagg dated 4th July 2011

3 Question 1 allowed the survey to capture the distribution of ages within the local population, to aid both understanding of the results by age group, but also to provide data on what activities are of most interest to each age group surveyed;

Question 2 sought to understand what facilities are currently in use, and how often residents use them;

Question 3 was asked to understand what problems, if any, were experienced by local residents when attempting to book a community hall;

Question 4 asked residents what activities they have undertaken in the past twelve months, and what activities they plan to do in the next twelve months. Asking this was deemed pivotal to the survey result as past behaviour is often a better predictor of future behaviours than simply asking people directly; direct questioning increases the potential for the respondent to provide a socially desirable answer rather than what they will realistically do. Therefore asking this question both directly and indirectly is very useful in understanding likely future usage.

Question 5 gave the local residents their say as to what they believe is the best use of the S.106 funds, but limited by the possible options permitted by the S.106 agreements, as agreed with the Council;

Question 6 was ultimately the question the entire survey was working towards, and asks the overall question directly whether they felt there was a need for a new community facility in East Harnham.

3.3. It was decided to conduct the survey door-to-door to maximise the response rate and to therefore best reflect the views of residents.

4. Conduct of the Survey

4.1. The survey was carried out between 30th August and 25th September 2011. As the EHCA withdrew their participation, the OFRRA and Annie Scadden from the Salisbury Council discussed proceeding on the following basis:

 OFRRA would aim to target at least 50% of households in each area to be truly representative of each survey area within East Harnham. These areas consisted of the three S.106 areas (Rowbarrow, Lime Kiln Way and Osmund Fields) and also the Downton Road area and Britford village.  Postal surveys were provided to those residents who wished to return them at a later date, these were returned directly to Annie Scadden at Salisbury City Council.  OFRRA would conduct sufficient door-to-door surveys to be representative of East Harnham residents;  The survey sheets were colour coded by area;

4  A log of all addresses that completed a survey was kept so that should Wiltshire Council request it, they could undertake a sample assessment to check where the survey was undertaken.

4.2. Therefore with the agreement on the above points with Annie Scadden, the OFRRA methodology was then in line with the methodologies used by the Council when they conduct their own surveys and is deemed a robust and valid methodology.

5. Distribution by Area and Response Rates

5.1. The total number of households that were approached by the OFRRA and responded, either by completing a survey or refusing, equalled 405 homes. Many more houses in the East Harnham area were approached, but either there was no response at all (i.e. no answer) or people requested an envelope drop. Those that specifically requested an envelope drop consisted of 6 households overall. Four of these surveys were returned to Salisbury City Council.

5.2. Of those households approached, the number of refusals was 35, or 8.6% of the total. This resulted in an overall response rate of 91.4%.

Area

Returned/Completed Refused Total Britford 25 0 25

Downton Road 96 23 119

Lime Kiln Way 49 6 55

Osmund Fields 114 0 114

Rowbarrow 86 6 92

Total 370 35 405

Overall Return Rate 91.4%

Returned/Completed includes Postal Returns

Figure 1 - Returns and Refusals by Area

5  The response rates can be summarised as follows:

Area Response Rate Osmund Fields 100%, no refusals Britford 100%, no refusals Downton Road Area 79%, 21% refusals Rowbarrow 94% , 6% refusals Lime Kiln Way 89%, 11% refusals Figure 2 – Response Rates by Area 6. Results and Analysis

6.1. The OFRRA survey used standard statistical methods (as used by reputable sample companies and researchers) to determine the necessary survey sample sizes. These were calculated on the basis that East Harnham consisted of 1,300 households, hence to be representative of East Harnham OFRRA needed to carry out at least 297 surveys. OFRRA exceeded this and approached 405 homes in the area, with 370 households completing the survey (91% response rate). The sample size of 370 completed questionnaires (excluding the 35 refusals) is sufficient to be representative of more than 2,000 households which is much larger than that of East Harnham. It is therefore a robust basis for the analysis of the survey results.

6.2. The survey produced a significant amount of data, and this is analysed in more detail in the following paragraphs. The key finding from the results was that 74.6% of local residents stated there was no need for a new community facility in East Harnham. Only 20.8% of residents felt there was a need for a new centre, and 4.6% had no opinion on the issue.

6.3. With a sample of 3704, and with 74.6% of those surveyed preferring the S.106 funds to be spent on improving existing facilities, the Council can have 95% confidence that the results are representative of the population of East Harnham, with an error rate of no more than +/- 3.75%5. Therefore it is possible to state that if the population of east Harnham were all surveyed (rather than the sample of 370) the council can have 95% confidence that the total preferring the S.106 funds to be spend on improving existing facilities would be between 70.85 and 78.35%.

6.4. More detailed analysis of each question, and its implications, is provided in the sections below.

4 Of which a minimum of 50% of each area was surveyed (paragraph 4.1 refers)

5 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of 3.75

6 6.5. Question 1: How many people are there in your household in the following age ranges?

6.5.1. The data collected on this question includes both age demographics and total population of the area surveyed. The total population encompassed by the completed surveys is 986. The table below outlines the Age Distribution of the sample, by area:

Age 0-5 6-9 10-14 15-18 19-30 31-45 46-65 0ver 65 Total

Britford 4 3 2 5 3 8 24 9 58

Downton Rd 21 17 18 5 29 52 85 31 258

Lime Kiln Way 11 11 12 6 12 28 32 19 131

Osmund Fields 43 24 30 12 88 88 33 8 326

Rowbarrow 14 12 18 14 22 42 66 25 213

Total 93 67 80 42 154 218 240 92 986

Figure 3 - Age Distribution by Area

6.6. Question 2: In the last twelve months how often have you used the following local community facilities?

6.6.1. It was interesting when reviewing results to notice a growing trend that indicated that those that do not use the existing facilities within 0.6 miles seem to want a new centre, whereas those that use the facilities, and use more than one facility, tended to think that there was no need for another centre in the area. This suggests either that residents are unwilling to travel half a mile to use a centre, or (more likely) that those that do not use the centres, but would like to see a new centre, are exhibiting “social desirability” in their responses. Many of these have not used a centre in the past 12 months, and again, many do not plan to use one in the next 12 months.

6.6.2. It was also interesting to note that many households within East Harnham were not even aware of the number of facilities in the area that were available to them. A recurring comment from residents was that they would like to see more funds spent on advertising these facilities and the activities that are available. It may be possible that local community groups (such as OFRRA and EHCA) could support this aim through voluntary leaflet distribution.

6.6.3. The statistics on use of existing facilities also highlight the fact that the vast majority of residents do not use the halls already in place. This ranges from 82.7% of those surveyed not making use of the Salisbury Hospital Social Club to 97.6% for those not using the Sea Cadet Centre and Community Hall.

7 Frequency of Hall Use Rarely Weekly Monthly Britford Memorial Hall 16 1 9 Harnham Club 26 8 1

Harnham Free Church 26 11 2 Harnham Junior School Hall 10 6 2 Harnham School 13 9 2 Harnham Memorial Hall 25 5 5 Salisbury Hospital Social Club 34 24 5 Radnor Hall 22 1 1 Sea Cadet Centre & Community Hall 7 2 0 St George's Hall 29 8 2 Figure 4 - Frequency of Hall Use - Last 12 Months

6.6.4. Households Declaring No Past Use of Existing Halls

6.6.4.1. A significant portion of local residents indicate that they have not used any local halls in the last year.

% of Sample (n=370)

Hall Never Used not used centre in past 12 months Britford Memorial Hall 344 93.0% Harnham Club 339 91.6% Harnham Free Church 327 88.4% Harnham Junior School Hall 350 94.6% Harnham School 347 93.8% Harnham Memorial Hall 335 90.5% Salisbury Hospital Social Club 306 82.7%

Radnor Hall 343 92.7% Sea Cadet Centre & Community Hall 361 97.6% St George's Hall 331 89.5% Figure 5 - Number of Households with No Use of Local Halls

6.7. Question 3: In the last twelve months, have you experienced any problems when trying to book any of the above community facilities as an individual, or on a regular basis as part of a group or club?

6.7.1. One of the concerns raised during discussions with the EHCA around the survey content related to the stated belief that local residents have difficulties booking the local facilities. The results of this question are particularly interesting, based on the assumption of a perceived issue.

6.7.2. Out of the 370 surveyed who responded to this question, 368 indicated they have had no problems with booking local facilities – equating to 99.5%. Even taking into account the

8 high proportion of the local population who make no use of local centres, this still clearly indicates that there are no significant issues for local residents in booking local facilities.

6.8. Question 4: In the past twelve months, which of the following activities have you used your local Community facility for, and which are you likely to use in the next twelve months?

6.8.1. Activities used in the past twelve months

6.8.1.1. The following table illustrates the usage patterns by activity over the last 12 months. The most frequently cited reasons for using the existing community halls were for community celebrations, keep fit, Meetings and Private functions.

Have Used Last 12 Months Activity Numeric % Community Celebration 26 12.4% Concerts 11 5.3% Dancing 10 4.8% Drama 6 2.9% Educational Classes 9 4.3% Exhibitions 4 1.9% Keep Fit 25 12.0%

Marital Arts 2 1.0% Meetings 29 13.9% Religious Meetings 7 3.3% Parent & Toddler Group 11 5.3% Private Functions 37 17.7% Senior Citizen Group 4 1.9% Short Mat Bowl 0 0.0% Table Tennis 0 0.0% Whist/Bridge 0 0.0% Youth Groups 16 7.7% Other 12 5.7%

Total 209

Figure 6 - Usage by Activity last 12 months

6.8.2. Activities likely to be used in the next twelve months

6.8.2.1. The following table (figure 7) illustrates the desired activities for the next twelve months. This indicates that there is a more varied response to future activities, and that keep fit is by far the most popular activity being sought, followed by private functions, educational classes and dancing. Further work is therefore propose to work with local centres to facilitate activities of interest to the local population.

9

Future Desired Use Activity Numeric % Community Celebration 47 7.6%

Concerts 47 7.6% Dancing 51 8.2% Drama 29 4.7% Educational Classes 59 9.5% Exhibitions 41 6.6% Keep Fit 106 17.1% Marital Arts 14 2.3% Meetings 42 6.8% Religious Meetings 14 2.3% Parent & Toddler Group 18 2.9% Private Functions 61 9.8% Senior Citizen Group 16 2.6% Short Mat Bowl 3 0.5%

Table Tennis 16 2.6% Whist/Bridge 3 0.5% Youth Groups 26 4.2% Other 28 4.5% Total 621

Figure 7 - Desired Use by Activity - Next 12 Months

6.9. Question 5: In your opinion what would you like to see happen wit the funds available?

6.9.1.1. Of the surveys completed or received, 370 respondents answered the question:

 71.9% favoured the use of the S106 funds to improve existing facilities.  17.6% favoured the construction of a new facility at Osmund Fields.  6.2 % favoured construction of a new facility, elsewhere in East Harnham.  4.3% had no opinion.

6.9.1.2. In the past there have been misleading statements the funds from Section 106 Agreements applicable to Lime Kiln Way, Osmund Fields and Rowbarrow Gardens are only available to construct a new community centre. This is not the case, as has been confirmed by Wiltshire Council. Comments received from many of those surveyed indicated that they had not been aware of the potential alternative use of the funds to improve other facilities, or to construct a centre at a different location within the city.

10 6.10. Question 6: Overall do you think there is a need for a new Community facility in East Harnham

6.10.1. Of the surveys received or returned, there were 353 responses to this question:

 276, or 74.6%, stated there was No Need for a new community centre in East Harnham.  77, or 20.8% stated there was a need for a new community centre in East Harnham.  17, or 4.6%, had no opinion.

6.10.2. This simple Yes or No question was the fundamental purpose of this survey. When read in conjunction with the Use of Funds (the previous question) the conclusion is clear.

6.10.3. Results for this question by area were as summarised in the following table:

Yes No Other Britford 0 24 1

Downton Road 24 67 5 Lime Kiln Way 20 26 3 Osmund Fields 12 99 3 Rowbarrow 21 60 5 Total 77 276 17

20.8% 74.6% 4.6% Figure 8 - Results by Area 7. Discussion

7.1.1. Additional Statistical Analysis

7.1.1.1. Out of the 77 (20.8%) of households that wanted a new Community centre the following further statistics apply:

 53 Households wanted a new facility at Osmund Fields only.  18 Households wanted a new facility elsewhere.  6 Households were inconsistent, stating that they wanted a new facility, however, also stating that they wanted to see existing community facilities enhanced.

7.1.1.2. Out of the 53 households that wanted a new centre at Osmund Fields:

 30 households have not used any facilities in the last 12 months.  20 Households have used one or more facility in the last 12 months.  17 Households do not intend to use any facilities in the next 12 months.  20 Households have used and intend to keep using facilities in the future.  7 Households have not used and do not plan to use any facilities.

11 7.1.2. Summary of analysis

7.1.2.1. This demonstrates that overall, only 5.4% of the community have used facilities in the last 12 months and intend to keep using facilities in the next 12 months and want a new centre at Osmund Fields. This appears to suggest that even amongst those who expressed a desire for a new centre, there are a significant proportion who are unlikely to make use of it if it were built.

7.1.2.2. Out of the 18 households that wanted a new facility but would like it elsewhere, only 3 households have used facilities in the past 12 months and intend to keep using facilities in the future. This again suggests that those who would like a new centre to be built somewhere in Salisbury are not necessarily likely to use it.

7.1.2.3. The combined results demonstrate that only 23 households within the East Harnham sample have shown evidence of using facilities in the past and intend to keep using facilities in the future and believe that there is a need for a new centre – regardless of where it is built. This equates to approximately 6% of the survey and of the wider East Harnham population. Given that past behaviour is a reasonable predictor of future behaviour, the data collected by this survey indicate that the usage of any new centre is likely to be low. Higher levels of usage would likely only be achieved through reduced use of other existing centres that are already struggling to get people to use them. The council would continue to have an obligation to support the existing centres, thereby potentially increasing demands on already limited funding streams.

Conclusions

7.2. It is evident from conducting this survey that a new centre is neither desired or needed by those local to the area. The results showed that 74.6% of local residents did not want a new hall built, and would rather the S.106 funds were spent on enhancing existing facilities. Furthermore, Only 5.4% have used facilities in the last 12 months and intend to keep using facilities in the next 12 months and want a new centre at Osmund Fields. This appears to suggest that even amongst those who expressed a desire for a new centre, there are a significant proportion who are unlikely to make use of it if it were built.

7.3. We call on the Council to take note of the Survey Results and respect the wishes of 74.6% East Harnham residents. The people of East Harnham would like to see the S106 funds spent on updating the existing community halls and facilities, and do not wish to see a new hall built. OFRRA also call on EHCA to stand by their statement made in the Salisbury Journal on the 17th March 2010:

“It may be that we come up with a need for a smaller centre or it may be that we discover that the community has no need for another community centre at all. We are open to see what the survey reveals”.

12