Consultation Two - Results - Denmead Neighbourhood Plan Website

Go to content

Consultation Two - Results

DNF  Denmead Neighbourhood Forum
A Frontrunner community group, operating as a Working Party of the Parish Council, producing a Neighbourhood Plan for Denmead

On the second phase of community engagement -
Data obtained from the ‘Drop In’ Sessions

Click HERE to download a PDF of this Report

(Version 3.2 Final)
10 th June 2013
1.  First encounters – the ‘marmite’ card survey
2.  Background to the ‘Drop In’ Sessions and Survey
3.  The Welcome
4.   The ‘Drop In’ survey data
4.1  Housing needs
 4.2  Placement of development
 4.3  Recreation
 4.4  Our Community
 4.5  Moving around
 4.6  Employment:
  4.6.1 Self employment
  4.6.2 Parklands Business Park
 4.7  What about a Travellers site?
4.8   Recorded comments
5.  Final remarks

1.  First encounters – the ‘marmite’ card survey
1.1  Between May and September 2012, cards holding a simple three question survey were given out by DNF team members at a number of events and from a small stand outside the Co-op supermarket. This was done on nine occasions, at various times of day and various days of the week. This initial engagement gave the participant the chance to write down what they liked and what they disliked about Denmead, and if they so wished, what they suggested should be done to deal with any dislikes. 436 cards were returned. Deb Appleby (of Locality) agreed to carry out an analysis of them and this was presented to us at the meeting on 6 th October 2012. The main points were:
275 (63%) people liked the friendliness and village feel of Denmead.
Of the reasons given for this, the shops; open spaces; playing fields and sports facilities and the rural semi-rural character of the Parish, have over 50 mentions each.
196 (45%) people are concerned about the level of current and proposed future house   building
129 (30%) see the Denmead Neighbourhood Plan (DNP) as a tool for influence future   development.
Improving the ‘bus service and speeding traffic are also concerns (Both at 52 or 12%)
[Details of the engagement activity, with photos, together with the analysis can be obtained from the Clerk and will be prepared as a separate paper as supplementary paper to the Neighbourhood Plan.]
1.2  The Steering Group has agreed that this data gives us a logical flow of evidence which starts with the Blueprint submission, prepared (for Winchester City Council’s LDF consultation) in January 2011. This new data can be used with the other data being collected to provide justification within the NP.
2.  Background to the ‘Drop In’ Sessions and the Survey
2.1  The second phase of the Neighbourhood Plan’s community engagement was done with a view to encouraging participation through a simple, direct approach. This was achieved by using A0-sized wall posters with the questions set out on them. Answers were made by placing an adhesive spot in the appropriate answer position.
2.2  ‘Drop In’ sessions were held at two locations. One was the Denmead Junior School during Parents Evenings on 2 nd /4 th October 2012 – on Recreation - and on the 5 th/7 th February 2012 – on Housing. This Report takes the opportunity to record the DNP team’s thanks to the Chair of Governors and the Executive Head Teacher for their permission to use the Parents’ Evenings to engage with a segment of the village population that, in the past, has proved difficult to reach.

2.3  The other location for ‘Drop-In’ sessions was an empty premise within the designated Primary Shopping Area of Denmead, formerly a branch of the Nat West Bank. Seven sessions were held during February of which four were on Saturdays and three on weekdays. The weather was bitterly cold and very wet so shoppers were invited in "to warm up" with hot coffee and to take part. At these ‘Drop-in’ events, the questions were varied and not all questions were at every session. This was deliberate policy aimed at limiting the demands of time upon participants.  
3.  The Welcome
3.1  Encouragement to take part was part of the team’s warm welcome and provided a valuable chance to chat to participants. In turn, this enabled the team to record ideas they had for a better quality of life for Denmead residents. The conversations provided an opportunity to counteract the view, sometimes expressed that "Whatever I say can’t make any difference".  Although not all suggestions are appropriate to the Neighbourhood Plan (i.e. more police presence) these ideas are recorded at section 4.8 for follow-up action to be considered by the Parish Council.
3.2   At the ‘Drop-in’ sessions, as part of the welcome, participants were asked to provide their postcode. Of the 243 participants 233 provided valid postcodes. These have been plotted on a street map of the village (Figure 1.) and provides evidence that these surveys do NOT have a geographical bias.

Figure 1.  Denmead street map showing location of those taking part in the former Nat West Bank ‘Drop In’ sessions.

4.  The ‘Drop In’ survey data
4.1 Housing needs
4.1.1 This question was asked throughout the Village ‘Drop In’ sessions and at the Spring sessions at the Junior School.  It was perceived by most people as the core of Neighbourhood Plans. Other than explaining the definitions of the terms used and the fact that this survey was a start which will be used alongside other information, such as that on demographic change, participants were able to answer as they saw fit, answering all, some or even none of the questions.

What type of housing?   
Exception housing Yes 15    
No 0    
Open Market Yes 99 27% Totals  
No 9  Yes 369 85.6%
Social Rent Yes 27 7% No 62 14.4%
No 19   431
Part owned/part rented Yes 65 17%   
No 7    
1 bed studio flat Yes 18 5%   
No 11    
2 bed houses Yes 45 12%   
No 6    
3 bed houses Yes 76 21%   
No 2    
4/5 bed houses Yes 39 10%   
No 8    

Make provision for the following   
Warden assisted sheltered housing Yes 115 92% Totals  
No 10 8% Yes 187 90.8%
Care homes Yes 72 88.8% No 19 9.2%
No 9 11.1%   

Where should it be built?
2/3 large developments  8 3.8%
Several smaller (50)  37 17.6%
Lots of small  105 78.6%

Traditional (i.e. 1950/60s semi-detached houses – example Purbrook, Waterlooville)  59 28.1%
Modern with traditional features (i.e. modern but with use of traditional features such as flint & brick walls and wooden porches – example Windmill Gardens - Denmead)   140 66.6%
Modern (i.e. use of large windows, angled flat roofs gall – example Affordable Homes in West Meon)  10 4.8%

Provision of new houses may generate some income – could this contribute to new facilities?
Open space / park Yes 84 92.3%
No 7 7.7%
New community facility Yes 76 87.4%
No 11 12.6%

4.1.2 Comment: An initial summary shows that there was
• significant opinion in favour of open market housing, but shared equity should not be ignored,
• support  for warden assisted sheltered and care homes was very high,
• a majority for a lot of small-scale development (78%) but only limited support for 2 or 3 large sites e.g. three sites each of 50 or more whilst 18% of respondents wanted several under 50 dwellings per site,
• a clear preference was for modern design with traditional features.
The relationship between the income generation associated with developments and the size of development (i.e. The fact that “worthwhile” funds would only become available with larger developments) was not expanded upon in detail, thus the data on new facilities, whilst very important should be treated as indicative.

Figure 2.  A map showing the sites mentioned in the following paragraghs.   

4.2.1 Background: The opportunity for those responding to indicate where they thought the best place might be to take some of the development that Denmead will experience between now and 2031 was done by given people the chance to place a mark on a map of the Parish. This question was presented at both the Junior School parents’ evenings and at the former Nat West ‘Drop-In’ sessions, thus a total of 314 participants could have responded. In fact 224 took part.
4.2.2 The results are set out below:
Site ref Site location # %
367 Kidmere (Carpenters Field)  57 (25.5%)
1776 Land between Inhams Lane and Hawthorn Road 43 (19.2%)
313 Land adjacent to Kidmere 33 (14.7%)
Common Land adjacent to Thompsons Lane 32 (14.3%)
2003 Land at Parklands Business Park  11 (4.9%)
310/311 Land between Forest Road and Furzley Road 11 (4.9%)
2004 Land next to Maple Drive 10 (4.5%)
2493 Land between Inhams Field and Harvest Road 8 (3.6%)
South of
Harts Copse Greater Frenchies Field 7 (3.1%)
362 Land between Bunkers Hill and Forest Road 6 (2.7%)
1835 Land at Old River 6 (2.7%)

4.2.3 Comment: These results give support to the idea that an extension of the village to the north, at the field called Kidmere (known popularly as Carpenters Field) and an adjacent field  would not only be sustainable (i.e. proximate to the village shops and facilities) but would be acceptable to a large proportion (40%) of the village (25.5 + 14.7)%. Land to the west, at Inhams Lane, accessible from Harvest Road and Inhams Lane (and even Hawthorn Road but that is in private ownership) is the second potential area. [Note these results do not take into account environmental factors such as SINCs and Flood Plains. These will need to be overlaid on the survey data when the placement criteria have been finalised.]

4.3 Recreation
4.3.1 Background: Informal surveys were carried out using questions written up on A0-sized posters and people were invited to place sticky spots against any suggestions they support. Everyone had five spots and could use more than one on any one item. They were not obliged to use them all, if that was their wish. Respondents could add ‘written-in’ answers on post-it notes.
4.3.2 The results are set out below:
A.What would you use extra space for if Denmead could obtain it for public use:
1. Formal sport (i.e. pitches - sports use)   Yes 108 No 10
2. Informal (kick-around jogging track)   Yes 94 No 8
3. Allotments (or mini-allotments)     Yes 89 No 10
4. Would you like to have a Park with flower beds and seats to sit and enjoy the space?        Yes 154 No 3
5. Any other ideas?      ……….
Would you use any of the above personally?  Yes 153 No 5
If so which one(s)?      ……….
If formal space is wanted – what kind of pitches are needed?
More football       …19…….
5 a side pitches (and League?)    …20……
Hockey       …11…….
Rugby        …29.….
 Other sport i.e. Handball, Volleyball, Baseball, Ultimate …62….
Would you join a team/class  to do them?    Yes  58      No 20
Would it help if a trainer was there to teach you?  Yes  45       No 6
Adults/seniors only: Would you help to run the team/class? Yes  27       No 17
Using the map (on the wall) where would you put this new space?  [Results to follow]
B. Do you use an indoor facility for sport ?   Yes  92       No □
If so where …
Denmead       Yes  19       No □
Waterlooville       Yes  88       No □
Havant        Yes  19       No □
Fareham       Yes  9       No □
Somewere else?      Yes     29        No □    
If so, in what sport/activity do you participate ?
Fitness       Yes  47       No □
Swimming       Yes  88       No □
Badminton       Yes  11       No □
Five a side Football       Yes  6        No □
Other ?
How often?
Daily?        Yes  14        No □
Weekly?       Yes  93       No □
Monthly?       Yes  6       No □
Occasionally?       Yes  11        No □
Never        Yes  □        No □

What would encourage you to use them more frequently?
Easier to get to?      Yes  42       No □
Make them cheaper?      Yes  28       No □
Wouldn’t use them more frequently   Yes  5       No □

C. Do you use Creech Woods?     Yes    178      No □
If so is it to –
 walk the dog         Yes  84       No
 enjoy the woods with healthy exercise    Yes  108      No □
 use, or allow children/friends to use the new play areas? Yes  102     No □

4.3.3 An initial reading of the results shows that -
• The idea of a ‘formal’ park to allow people to enjoy being out-of-doors without formal sport or play area nearby has been strongly supported.
• More formal (i.e. pitch) sports space – with some support for different or ‘new’ sports; informal sports space and allotments have all be well supported.
• Not surprisingly, Waterlooville is the venue that most people use for indoor recreation (i.e. gym and swimming) on a weekly basis. If further participation is to be encouraged then proximity to Denmead and cost are the two factors that might encourage more people to join in ‘sport’ … or maybe the same people to do more!
• The use of Creech Woods, although a Forestry Commission site, is shown to be important to residents of all ages and thus may be a site for further joint projects between the Parish and the Commission.
4.4 Our Community
4.4.1 Background: The explanatory text of the question was as follows: “Community feedback from the ‘card’ survey conducted last year has told us that 63.1% like Denmead’s friendliness and village feel and that nearly 10% specifically mentioned that they valued such things as the shops, open spaces playing fields. Do you agree with them?” (Everyone could use up to three spots). This survey was available from 20th to 23rd February and involved 91 people.

4.4.2 The results area set out below:

Q1. Living in Denmead I particularly value …

The Health Centre    □ 63  69.2%
Shops (see also Q2)   □ 34 37.4%
The countryside    □ 63 69.2%
Community Groups (WI, DVA etc) □  9  9.9%
Post Office     □ 31 34.1%
Footpaths     □ 31 34.1%
Pre-Schools/Child Care   □  5  5.5%
Churches     □ 17 18.7%
Ashling Park (Cricket/Football/Bowls/Tennis) □16 17.9%
The Community Centre   □ 21  23.1%
Have we missed something? If so, let us know. Vet 4 (4.4%),
        Pubs 6 (6.4%)

Q2 Do you think we should encourage and expand our shopping area ?
Yes □ 30 (33.0%)   No □ 33 (36.3%)

4.4.3 Comment – The Health Centre, Post Office and Shops met physical needs and are valued. The Countryside and Footpaths back up the findings of the Marmite survey, that residents value Denmead’s rural characteristics.
The lower importance given to community groups and sports facilities is surprising, but may be a factor of the aging population, a theme which is supported by the lack of importance attached to the Pre-Schools/Childcare question.
Although the encouragement of Shops is supported by a third of the respondents, a similar number were against this, probably concerned at the aspect of expanding the shopping capability, thus supporting the local retailers on the basis of sustainability (reducing car use) is not ruled out on these figures.
4.5 Moving around
The questions on transport and issues associated with moving within and outside of the Parish were asked of those people who attended the last four sessions (three weekdays and a Saturday) which totalled 91 in all. One thirds of those people preferred not to complete the questions. In particular, the numbers for the question on travel to and from work are too small to draw any conclusion.
Twenty of the 31 respondents answered “yes” to the question “If public transport were more readily available would you use it?” whilst 33 out of 35 felt that “Denmead should make more of its greenways and cycleways”.
Regarding shopping trips, 43 of 56 respondents do their main shopping in Waterlooville whilst 45 of 52 do their ‘top-up’ shopping in Denmead.
For entertainment, 25 of 60 respondents said that they went to Havant or Portsmouth, whilst 16 stayed in Denmead.
Comment: Given the low numbers involved care must be taken in using these figures, however where there is official data from other sources the figures quoted above will provide the important support from a local perspective.
4.6 Employment:
4.6.1 Background: Both of these questions were available for comment through the entirety of the ‘Drop In’ sessions at the former Nat West Bank and thus 243 people could have answered these questions.
4.6.2 Self employment
The question was ARE YOU SELF - EMPLOYED?
Explanatory text was “To support the start-up and encourage new and small businesses (and thus having more jobs in Denmead for the people of Denmead) we are keen to find out more about self-employed people and their businesses. Can you help by answering these short questions, please?”
Do you work alone?
Yes □  13    No □ 18
Do you work away from home?
Yes □  15    No □ 15
Would you like to rent/buy a start-up unit in Denmead?
Yes □  3    No □ 18
Would you use a business hub?
Yes □  7    No □ 15
Would you like a facility for shared support services?
Yes □  10    No □ 10
Comment: These figures show a surprising lack of enthusiasm for the Parish Council’s received wisdom that we need small units for businesses to move “out of the lounge/bedroom”. The use of a business hub is supported, with some demand for shared services. There is a role for the DNF to relate these findings to those of the Employers/Employment Work Package to further consider these findings.

4.6.3 Parklands Business Park
The question was SOME LAND FOR MORE JOBS?
Explanatory text/question was “Would you support the idea of encouraging new and established businesses, and thus having more jobs in Denmead for the people of Denmead, by allocating more land - about 2 hectares (about 5 acres) of space - to the Parklands Commercial Estate area?”
Yes □ 139 (84.4%)
No □   26 (15.6%)
Note: Five people commented that better use should be made of the existing units.
Comment: This evidence shows strong support for Parklands to be promoted and for the consideration of its expansion. The aim of these deliberations would be to ensure that as far as it is possible, there are more jobs in Denmead for Denmead people. In the Parish Council’s experience, making better use of Parklands as a business area could be achieved by bringing it inside a revised development boundary enabling change of use of existing premises to be achieved more easily and thus enabling the area to be reactive to both a changing economy and changing society.  

4.7 What about a Travellers site?
The option to identify, by marking on a map) a site for five traveller caravans was presented to the final five ‘Drop In’ sessions. The was a reluctance to be involved in answering and this was judged to be part of the antipathy to the issues of Travellers and a view that Denmead should not have any. Denmead has a history of traveller incursions (most recently at Parklands Business Park) which engenders this view. Of the 18 responses (from a possible 135) 10 indicate a site on the edge of Creech Wood which is on the border of the NP Area.
A constructive verbal comment made by one participant and echoed by others, is that HCC has a site at Whiteley, one that is not remote, neither is it close to existing housing. It could be enlarged using derelict land close by and would fulfil Winchester District’s quota.

4.8 Recorded comments
4.8.1 The following is the list of all comments written in response to the wall surveys. Where they were repeated (or a similar comment was made, the number of occurrences is in brackets after the subject.
1 Cycle route to join Waterlooville with A27 cycle route
2 Promote cycling for transport and recreation
3 Better buses
4 Sign posted walks on existing footpaths
5 Improve the upkeep of footways (pavements)
6 Provide more dog bins (2)
7 Safe, enclosed dog friendly space
8 No more homes (3)
9 We should make more use of the New Pavilion – never open
10 The occasional sign post along the footpaths
11 Provide an Indoor Cricket facility
12 50m Swimming Pool
13 400m oval running track (2)
14 Paved path around Ashling Park for easy walking
15 A formal park with flower beds (3)
16 More allotments
17 Fence the junior Creech Wood Play area
18 Provide Toilets at Creech Wood
19 Improve paths at Creech Woods for easier winter use

4.8.2 Comment: The list is set out as the comments were made. No attempt has been made to answer or action the comments in this document although the Parish Council has a clear policies which deal with some. Others are particularly expensive, but all should figure in the Neighbourhood Plan team’s discussion as options for future community facilities are explored.

5. Final Remarks
My thanks are recorded to those Parish Councillors and DNP team members who helped in the processing of the data, to Tony Daniells for tidying the final inserts and to Patricia Stallard and Jenny Nell for their comments on various drafts of the paper.

Back to content