DOCSLIB.ORG

Delivering Best in Class Communications for Southampton City Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Delivering Best in Class Communications for Southampton City Council ITEM NO 9 Appendix 4 Members Room Document Delivering best in class communications for Southampton City Council A report and proposals for improving the promotion of Southampton City Council and resident engagement with the council REPORT BY WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL May 2009 By Alex Aiken, Lindsay Coulson and Neil Wholey DRAFT Objective The objective of this review is to provide a robust plan to develop Southampton’s communications to effectively promote the city. Methodology This report was compiled using a review of major papers, publications and plans, surveys and interviews with managers, members and residents, interviews with journalists and stakeholders, analysis of BVPI and Place survey data and comparison of performance against I&DeA and LGA criteria. Conclusion The council’s overall communications performance is currently at the bronze standard of best practice. The corporate communications team could be substantially improved by working to a coherent story and clear communications plan, developing pro-active campaigns and by the better use of existing resources across the council. DRAFT Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. CURRENT SITUATION 6 2. CURRENT OUTPUTS 10 3. CURRENT IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITY 14 4. DELIVERING THE STORY 31 5. PROPOSED APPROACH AND STRUCTURE 33 6. PROPOSED OUTPUT 37 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 38 8. APPENDICES 41 DRAFT Delivering best in class communications for Southampton City Council - DRAFT Executive Summary The council’s overall communications performance is currently weak and is operating at a level below that of council services. However, our findings show that the corporate communications team can be substantially improved by working to a clear communications plan, developing pro-active campaigns and by better use of existing resources across the council. It is also critical that the council develops a story for Southampton. To do so will take a different approach to that currently in operation with a restructured team. The main conclusion of this review is that the overall communications of the council is operating at 40% of its possible effectiveness and meets the bronze standard, based on our assessment against the I&DeA criteria, the LGA reputation campaign, manager and member surveys, resident survey and discussions with staff. The key areas which need significantly improving are: • Strategic communications and planning • Running of marketing campaigns • Pro-active local and national media relations • Crisis communications handling and pre-empting negative media coverage Crucially, the council has shown it is prepared to take the steps required to create a professional communications service with the expertise to advise the council. Effective communications depend on clear goals, a precise remit and the capacity and skill to deliver. At present there is a clear focus on being reactive to coverage in the Southern Daily Echo. This is important but only a small part of what a well performing communications team should be delivering. The team should be developed to not only ensure that coverage improves in the paper, but also that the council is well placed to react quickly and in an informed manner (a snapshot of coverage in the Echo over a four week period shows 53% is positive/neutral and 47% negative, Westminster City Council’s coverage is 89% positive/neutral, Harrow Council’s is 90% positive/neutral). This will involve senior managers and members advising the media team of activities, in order that communications can be planned, and not just looking for them to issue a press release once decisions are made. The team needs to target its releases better because at present more than 40% are not used. A more acceptable figure would be 10%. This report provides the first hard evidence of the impact of the council’s magazine CityView and while it is liked by residents it could be improved. Local media has more impact and key value for money stories are not getting through to residents. CityView is the council’s most effective tool for getting its message across but our research shows the local newspaper is currently the top source of information for residents (61%) with City View second (57%). It is critical to the main existing channels right before we can then focus on e-communications. There is generally a lack of meaningful evaluation of communications activities. There is a reluctance to carry out research prior to a campaign or evaluation afterwards. Encouragingly 77% of managers and members see the value of using public opinion research to measure the impact of communications. This indicates that communications should not just be measured by the number of positive media stories, but rather how well informed the audiences are and whether real changes in 4 Delivering best in class communications for Southampton City Council - DRAFT attitudes and behaviours have been delivered. At present, residents seem uninformed about the work of the council and the value of its work (47%). In such a vacuum it is clear that some negative national newspaper stories about councils are being read as being reflective of the council. In particular the council needs to focus on proving to residents it provides them with value for money and is improving the city for the better. Southampton City Council needs to deliver a compelling story for the authority, with which to champion the interests of the area. It needs to communicate how it is leading the city through the recession and build its brand as a major city with much to offer. There is an urgent need for quite radical change in order to unify council communications on grounds of efficiency and effectiveness. Posts that are currently spread throughout the organisation do not appear to be adding measurable value to the goals of the authority, rather they are causing duplication of work and friction. The authority and resources for communications should be unified around a corporate plan, with clear targets from April 2009. This report identifies a potential saving on current spending of up to £100,000 immediately and more later when further investigation has been carried out. The benefit of this unification will be seen in terms of better communications across the council. This will mean a campaign-based approach to champion the objectives of the organisation and its partners. The new and significantly different team structure would deliver 15 campaigns with clear objectives and timescales. A key priority will be a sustained value for money campaign over the next 12 months. In conclusion, we believe Southampton City Council has the ambition to deliver Gold Standard communications and operate at closer to 70-80% of potential effectiveness rather than our assessed 40%. There is clear evidence that the political and officer leadership of the authority are prepared to unite behind a compelling shared ambition for the area and articulate that consistently over time through a strong central communications team. To summarize, the key recommendations are as follows; Strategic • Head of Communications to maintain critical oversight of council communications spending. • A clear remit for corporate communications to enhance the reputation of the council using an annual communications plan to track success • The unification of the communications service across the authority. • Adoption of the proposed new structure. • To use research and evaluation as the basis of decision-making and campaign implementation Operational • To deliver tasks set out in the annual communications plan • To adopt a campaign-based approach with delivery taking place everyday • To improve City View • To set more demanding media targets Development • To create a city communications group to build the Southampton brand • Strengthen the professional development for staff • Continue programme of communications training for leading members and officers 5 Delivering best in class communications for Southampton City Council - DRAFT 1. Current situation 1.1 Southampton Southampton is the largest city in Hampshire, on the south coast of England. It is one of the biggest commercial ports in Europe and has a population of 231,200. It boasts a rich maritime history; the Mayflower set sail from Southampton for the New World in 1620 while today its docks are integral to the cruise industry. During the Second World War, large parts of the city were destroyed by the Luftwaffe and have since been rebuilt, mainly around the civic centre hub of Southampton City Council. Seven percent of Southampton’s population comes from ethnic minorities. Major employers include Southampton City Council, the University of Southampton, the Ford Transit factory and the NHS. Residents identify the top priorities for improvement as road and pavement repairs, the level of crime and activities for teenagers. There are circumstances in Southampton which make taking the step to first class communications ambitious; there was no overall control of the council between May 2001 and May 2008 and in every three out of four years the council must hold an election, meaning political leadership can change on a regular basis. The council became a unitary authority in 1997 and it should be considered that average satisfaction levels, amongst residents, are generally lower for unitaries than for other types of authorities. For this report comparisons are made with similar unitary authorities and against IDeA and LGA benchmarking standards. 1.2 Southampton media The council operates in a challenging local media
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annex F –List of Consultees
    ANNEX F –LIST OF CONSULTEES Local highway authorities Leicester City Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Bath & NE Somerset Council Lincolnshire County Council Bedfordshire County Council Liverpool City Council Birmingham City Council Local Government Association Blackburn & Darwen London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Blackpool Borough Council London Borough of Barnet Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Bexley Borough of Poole London Borough of Brent Bournemouth Borough Council London Borough of Bromley Bracknell Forest Borough Council London Borough of Camden Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Croydon Brighton and Hove City Council London Borough of Ealing Bristol City Council London Borough of Enfield Buckinghamshire County Council London Borough of Greenwich Bury Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hackney Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Cambridgeshire County Council Fulham Cheshire County Council London Borough of Haringey City of York Council London Borough of Harrow Cornwall County Council London Borough of Havering Corporation of London London Borough of Hillingdon County of Herefordshire District Council London Borough of Hounslow Coventry City Council London Borough of Islington Cumbria County Council London Borough of Lambeth Cumbria Highways London Borough of Lewisham Darlington Borough Council London Borough of Merton Derby City Council London Borough of Newham Derbyshire County Council London
    [Show full text]
  • Studentified Areas As Contested Heterotopias : Findings from Southampton
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by White Rose Research Online This is a repository copy of Studentified areas as contested heterotopias : Findings from Southampton. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/130755/ Version: Published Version Article: Brookfield, Katherine (2018) Studentified areas as contested heterotopias : Findings from Southampton. Area. pp. 1-10. ISSN 0004-0894 https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12458 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Accepted: 26 March 2018 DOI: 10.1111/area.12458 REGULAR PAPER Studentified areas as contested heterotopias: Findings from Southampton Katherine Brookfield Environment Department, University of The ongoing “massification” of higher education in the UK has generated York, York, UK increased demand for student housing. Some of this demand is being met by new, Correspondence purpose-built student accommodation, but much is being met through an intensifi- Katherine Brookfield “ ” Email: [email protected] cation of student properties in established student areas , and the expansion of student housing into neighbourhoods previously unaffected by high levels of stu- Funding information dent in-migration in a process termed “studentification”.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fairer Southampton
    A Fairer Southampton A Fairer Southampton Southampton Fairness Commission Final Report: December 2015 1 A Fairer Southampton Contents 1. Acknowledgements 2. Foreword from the Chair 3. Our vision and principles 4. Executive summary and recommendations 5. The Southampton Fairness Commission 6. Why fairness is important for everyone 7. The Southampton picture – not such a fair deal for everyone 8. Consultation, participation and engagement 9. The Commission’s recommendations: Fairer employment Fairer living Fairer organisations Fairer communities 10. A fairness index for the city 11. Next steps Appendix 1: Speakers and facilitators 2 A Fairer Southampton 1. Acknowledgements The Southampton Fairness Commission would like to thank: The countless individuals, groups, organisations who invested their time and energy in contributing to the Commission’s work – there are too many to name individually Those who shared their knowledge and expertise Those who gave us their personal testimonials and life experiences Those who shared their enthusiasm , innovation and ideas Speakers who gave formal presentations at the themed meetings. Other Fairness Commissions that have inspired us. We would also like to thank people who spoke and gave their support at the initial launch of the Southampton Fairness Commission - Lela Kogbara (Islington Council) John Denham (MP for Southampton Itchen until May 2015) and Paula Claisse from KPMG. We would particularly like to thank Councillor Andy Hull (Islington Council) for sharing learning and experience of the first ever Fairness Commission with us. Find out more about the Southampton Fairness Commission by visiting our website: www.southamptonfairnesscommission.org 3 A Fairer Southampton 2. Foreword from the Chair Like everyone else, I want a good life for myself, my family, and my friends.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing a Nursery/ School/College
    SENDIASS Training for Parents & Carers of children with Special Educational Needs (0-25) Welcome Choosing a nursery/ school/ college for your child with SEN ( Special Educational Needs) Your Trainers: Hannah Pinchin and Hayley Legg HOUSE KEEPING • Microphones on mute please • Feel free to add comments and questions to the chat box and we will email you a summary sheet with the answers on after the talk • PowerPoint will be shared after the training – sit back and relax! SENDIASS (Special Educational Needs and Disability Information Advice and Support Service) Who are we? SEND Information Advice Support A service for those Providing factual Providing impartial Providing living or working information found in advice on what confidential with ages 0-25yrs SEND Law and steps to take in the individualised with Special practices as well as areas of Education, support to empower Educational Needs local knowledge and Health and Social those who seek our and Disabilities signposting Care assistance TYPES OF EDUCATION MAINTAINED INDEPENDENT Educational institutions Educational institutions controlled and funded independent of local (maintained) by local authorities / secretary of authorities state MAINSTREAM SPECIALIST RESOURCE BASE A mainstream school is a A special school is a school Resource bases provide school which is not a which is “specially targeted specialist support special school and is either organised to make special but are not separate a maintained school or an educational provision for schools or institutions. Academy (section 83 CAFA pupils with SEN” (section They are units within a 2014). 337 of the Education Act mainstream school. 1996). How to make a short list List your ideal school (involve the child/YP if possible) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Q2 1617 LA Referrals
    Referrals to Local Authority Adoption Agencies from First4Adoption by region Q2 July-September 2016 Yorkshire & The Humber LA Adoption Agencies North East LA Adoption Agencies Durham County Council 13 North Yorkshire County Council* 30 1 Northumberland County Council 8 Barnsley Adoption Fostering Unit 11 South Tyneside Council 8 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council 11 2 North Tyneside Council 5 Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council 10 Redcar Cleveland Borough Council 5 Hull City Council 10 1 Web Referrals Phone Referrals Middlesbrough Council 3 East Riding Of Yorkshire Council 9 City Of Sunderland 2 Cumbria County Council 7 Gateshead Council 2 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 6 1 Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 2 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 Leeds City Council 6 1 Web Referrals Phone Referrals Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 5 Hartlepool Borough Council 4 North Lincolnshire Adoption Service 4 1 City Of York Council 3 North East Lincolnshire Adoption Service 3 1 Darlington Borough Council 2 Kirklees Metropolitan Council 2 1 Sheffield Metropolitan City Council 2 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council 2 * Denotes agencies with more than one office entry on the agency finder 0 10 20 30 40 North West LA Adoption Agencies Liverpool City Council 30 Cheshire West And Chester County Council 16 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 11 1 Manchester City Council 9 WWISH 9 Lancashire County Council 8 Oldham Council 8 1 Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council 8 2 Web Referrals Phone Referrals Wirral Adoption Team 8 Salford City Council 7 3 Bury Metropolitan
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a , Item 154. PDF 270 KB
    Combined Fire Authority Consultation Findings Report Part one – key findings summary November 2018 0 Contents – Part One Project overview ....................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary of key findings ........................................................................ 3 Demographic profile of respondents ...................................................................... 4 Key findings summary ............................................................................................. 6 Further detail on the consultation findings can be viewed in Part Two of this report. Imagery has been used throughout the report to illustrate findings; all icons are made by Freepik, available from www.flaticon.com. 1 Project overview Having worked successfully in partnership for three years, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority (HFRA), which is responsible for Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service (HFRS), and Isle of Wight Council (IWC), which is responsible for the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service (IWFRS), agreed to consult on whether or not to submit a proposal to central Government for the creation of a new Combined Fire Authority, which would cover Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton. Residents’ and stakeholders’ views were sought via an ‘open’ consultation, held from midday on Monday 6 August until midnight on Friday 26 October 2018. Responses could be submitted through an online Response Form, by paper version or as ‘unstructured’ letters and
    [Show full text]
  • The Provision of a Coroners Service to Southampton City Council.Pdf
    DECISION-MAKER: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- COMMUNITIES, CULTURE AND HOMES SUBJECT: THE PROVISION OF A CORONERS SERVICE TO SCC AND A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HCC AND SCC FOR THAT SERVICE. DATE OF DECISION: May 6, 2020 REPORT OF: HEAD OF SERVICE - CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR: Name: Rosie Zambra Tel: 023 8083400 E-mail: [email protected] Director Name: Mary D’Arcy Tel: 023 80 E-mail: mary.d’[email protected] STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY Not applicable BRIEF SUMMARY A decision needs to be made in relation to Southampton City Council entering into a formal funding agreement with Hampshire Country Council to provide a Coroners Service. This is a statutory function that we must have and at the present time a formal agreement and funding arrangements is not in place. Given the current COVID-19 emergency it is proposed that the decision to enter into this agreement is urgent and therefore that this decision is taken by the Executive Director for Communities, Culture and Homes. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report is submitted for consideration as a general exception under paragraph 15 of the Access to Information procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, notice having been given to the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee and the public. (i) To approve expenditure of £560,000 as set out in paragraph 7 of this report and to enter into the funding agreement between Southampton City Council and Hampshire Council for the Provision of a Coroners Service for 2020/21. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is a statutory requirement for the Southampton City Council to have a Coroners Service.
    [Show full text]
  • UASC Capacity Support - Proposed Distribution of £21.3M Allocation Is Based on Latest Available Home Office Management Data Capturing Numbers at September
    UASC capacity support - proposed distribution of £21.3m Allocation is based on latest available Home Office management data capturing numbers at September. The information on NTS transfers has been confirmed by the Strategic Migration Partnership leads and is accurate up to December 2017. Please see attached FAQ and methodology document for further information. Local Authority Amount Total 21,258,203.00 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham £ 141,094.00 London Borough of Barnet £ 282,189.00 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bath and North East Somerset Council £ 94,063.00 Bedford Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Bexley £ 282,189.00 Birmingham City Council £ 188,126.00 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Bournemouth Borough Council £ 141,094.00 Bracknell Forest Council £ 94,063.00 Bradford Metropolitan District Council £ 94,063.00 London Borough of Brent £ 329,219.00 Brighton and Hove City Council £ 188,126.00 Bristol City Council £ 188,126.00 London Borough of Bromley £ 141,094.00 Buckinghamshire County Council £ 188,126.00 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council £ 94,063.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £ 235,157.00 London Borough of Camden £ 329,219.00 Central Bedfordshire Council £ 282,189.00 Cheshire East Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Cheshire West and Chester Council £ 94,063.00 City of London £ 94,063.00 City of Nottingham Council £ 94,063.00 Cornwall Council (Unitary) £ 94,063.00 Coventry City
    [Show full text]
  • Tender for the Provision of Independent Fostering Agency Services
    TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF INDEPENDENT FOSTERING AGENCY SERVICES SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL (“The Council”) invites expressions of interest from suitably experienced firms/organisations for the provision of Independent Fostering Agency services. Southampton City Council are procuring these services for themselves and also for and on behalf of Bracknell Forest Council, Hampshire County Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Reading Borough Council, Slough Borough Council, Surrey County Council, West Berkshire Council, Windsor and Maidenhead Council and Wokingham Borough Council. The services will be provided through an Approved Provider List, Framework contract and Block contracts. The Approved Provider List will consist of all those providers that meet the council’s pre-determined criteria and accept the council’s contract conditions. Providers will be listed against a Lot or any combination of Lots from those listed below. The Framework Arrangement will contain multiple providers, divided into Lots. Placements through the Framework Arrangement will be made through a call-off process as set out in the framework agreement. Block contracts may also contain multiple providers, divided into Lots. Providers who wish to tender for the Framework and/or Block contracts will only be selected from those that have met the criteria for placement on the Approved Provider List and additional requirements detailed in the Instructions to Applicants. Providers will enter into an agreement for placement onto the Approved Provider List. Providers who are selected for inclusion on the Framework contract will enter into an agreement with the lead council (Southampton City Council), those Providers who are selected to provide services under a Block arrangement will enter into a services contract with those Councils (referred to above) which wish to have block arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Southampton and Portsmouth City Deal
    Southampton and Portsmouth City Deal Executive Summary The Southampton and Portsmouth City Deal will maximise the economic strengths of these two coastal cities and the wider Solent area, by supporting further growth in the area‟s maritime, marine and advanced manufacturing sectors. Across Southampton, Portsmouth and the Solent, the marine and maritime sector already accounts for over 20% of gross value added and provides 40,000 jobs locally. Over the next 12 years this sector is expected to grow by 5%, driven in part by key assets such as the Port of Southampton, Portsmouth Naval Base; and the Solent Marine Cluster – which includes Lloyds Register and the Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute. Advanced manufacturing is also an area of strength, growing during the recent recession and creating almost 5,000 new jobs. The flagship proposal for this City Deal will support further growth in these sectors by unlocking two high- profile sites within Southampton and Portsmouth – one of which involves Ministry of Defence owned land. These sites, once developed, will provide: new employment space; new housing; and lever in significant amounts of new private sector investment into the economy. To complement this, the City Deal will also implement programmes to: align skills provision to employer needs; tackle long term unemployment and youth unemployment; and enable small and medium enterprises to grow through the provision of effective business support. Over its lifetime the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership predict the City Deal will deliver: Over 4,700 permanent new jobs particularly focussed in marine, maritime and advanced manufacturing sectors. Over 13,000 construction jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 2 Solent Combined Authority Governance Review
    APPENDIX 2 Solent Combined Authority Governance Review. List of stakeholder contacted by Isle of Wight Council • IWALC • Federation of small businesses • Visit Isle of Wight • Bembridge Parish Council • Chale Parish Council • Shanklin Town Council • Southern Vectis • CLA • Isle of Wight NHS Trust • Isle of Wight Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) • Police, Isle of Wight District • Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce • Isle Help Advice Hub • Isle of Wight Citizens Advice Bureau • Age UK Isle of Wight • Island Roads • Amey • Spectrum Housing • Vectis Housing • Red Funnel • Wightlink • Hovertravel • IW College List of stakeholders contacted by Southampton City Council. • Allied Developments • Associated British Ports • Aster Group • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • Business South • City College Southampton • East Hampshire District Council (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • Eastleigh Borough Council (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • EM3 LEP Chair (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • Fareham Borough Council (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • Federation of Small Businesses • First Bus Hampshire and Dorset • Fleet Town Council (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • Go South Coast • Gosport Borough Council (on behalf of the three unitary authorities) • Great Western Railway B - 63 • Hammerson • Hampshire & Isle of Wight Community Rehabilitation Company • Hampshire and Regional Property Group • Hampshire Chamber of Commerce (on behalf of the
    [Show full text]
  • Local Sustainable Transport Fund - Application Form
    Local Sustainable Transport Fund - Application Form Guidance on the Application Process is available at: www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/ Bids for both small projects and initial proposals for large projects should be no more than 20 pages long. Applicant Information Local transport authority name(s)*: Isle of Wight Council Senior Responsible Owner name and position: Mr Peter Hayward, Strategic Manager, Highways and Transport Bid Manager name and position: Mrs Rachel Mills, Integrated Transport Manager Contact telephone number: 01983 821000 ext 8792 Email address: [email protected] Postal address: Highways and Transport Economy and Environment County Hall High Street Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1UD Website address for published bid: http://www.iwight.com/living_here/environment/Transport_Strategies/LSTF/default.asp - 1 - SECTION A - Project description and funding profile A1. Project name: Sustainable transport access to tourism A2. Headline description This bid seeks to upgrade, improve and promote our sustainable transport network in order to grow our green tourism market and establish the Island as a leading green tourism destination; including: Integrated transport hubs – establishment of strategic hubs providing live transport/tourism information and interchange facilities. Public transport information and support – delivery of a public transport RTI system providing live bus/train/ferry information accessible at hubs, rail stations, ferry terminals, via the web and phone app. New and enhanced tourism related bus services. Walking and cycling – increasing access and improvements to our network. Marketing, promotion and ‘hearts and minds’ – initiatives to improve and promote our green tourism offer. A3. Geographical area: Isle of Wight A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box): Small project bids Tranche 2 bid A5.
    [Show full text]