Get documents about "Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Document Sample
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Analysis of feedback cards from the ‘love’ it/ ‘hate’ it consultation
process that took place between the 27th October and December 9th
2008.
1
Contents
A Background and Introduction ...................................................................... 3
SECTION 1 – QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS BY BOROUGH
1.1 Love it Responses ...................................................................................... 5
1.2 Hate it Responses ...................................................................................... 7
SECTION 2 - QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
2.1 Love it Issues – Wider Borough (excluding Greater Eston) .........................9
2.2 Hate it Issues – Wider Borough (excluding Greater Eston) .........................14
2.3 Background to Greater Eston Consultation .................................................20
2.3 Love it Issues – Greater Eston ...................................................................21
2.4 Hate it Issues – Greater Eston ....................................................................24
SECTION 3 – A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES BY EACH WARD
3.1 Redcar........................................................................................................29
3.2 Saltburn ......................................................................................................30
3.3 Lazenby......................................................................................................31
3.4 Guisborough ...............................................................................................32
3.5 New Marske ...............................................................................................33
3.6 Skelton .......................................................................................................34
3.7 Brotton........................................................................................................35
3.8 Loftus .........................................................................................................36
3.9 Marske .......................................................................................................37
3.10 Moorsholm .................................................................................................38
3.11 Lingdale......................................................................................................39
3.12 Skinningrove...............................................................................................40
3.13 Carlin How ..................................................................................................41
3.14 South Bank .................................................................................................42
3.15 Grangetown ................................................................................................43
3.16 Normanby...................................................................................................44
3.17 Ormesby.....................................................................................................45
3.18 Eston ..........................................................................................................46
3.19 Whale Hill ...................................................................................................47
3.20 Teesville .....................................................................................................48
Additional Analysis of Photographs ............................................................50
Appendix 1 Tables of Results
Appendix 2 Responses by Area
Appendix 3 Responses by Ward
2
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Analysis of the ‘love’ it/ ‘hate’ it consultation process that took place
between the 27th October and December 9th 2008.
A Background and Introduction
A1 This report gives both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the responses received
by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to its ‘Shaping a Place called Redcar and
Cleveland’ consultation of late 2008.
A2 The overall aim of the analysis is to summarise the views of residents obtained during
the ‘love’ it ‘hate’ it’ consultation process of the shaping the Borough consultation and
the consultation on the plans for Greater Eston embodied in a ‘New Perspective’, during
which process respondents made comments on cards and post it notes under the
categories of ‘love’ it’ and ‘hate’ it’. The analysis has been undertaken both by the
overall Borough of Redcar and Cleveland, and by Greater Eston and the wider Borough
excluding Greater Eston. Analysis is also undertaken by individual ward areas referred
to by respondents.
A3 In total 1348 relating to the wider Redcar and Cleveland Borough excluding Greater
Eston and 432 comments were received relating to the Greater Eston area. Responses
from each Ward are shown in the table overleaf. It should be noted that in a small
number of cases the venue where the respondents made their comments was not the
ward in which they live. Comments have been analysed to the area to which
respondents were referring rather than to the venue in which the consultation took place.
A4 Comments both positive, (‘love’ it’) and negative (‘hate’ it’) have been coded using
emerging key themes from the consultation to assist the Council in understanding what
people feel about their area and why they hold this view. This report identifies the issues
for the key areas of Greater Eston and the wider Borough excluding Greater Eston. In
addition responses from the individual ward areas referred to by respondents have been
analysed. Sets of tables have therefore been produced showing these themes for the
overall sample and for individual wards and key areas. These are attached as Appendix
1. Respondents frequently identified more than one issue on their cards/response notes.
Up to five codes of emerging themes were given for each response and the tables
produced are ‘multiple response’ tables.
A5 In addition, the responses, (captured verbatim as far as was possible), written by
respondents on the cards and post it notes from fixed exhibitions have been included as
Appendix 2.
A6 The comments have been sorted according to the first mentioned theme. For example
on page 1 of Appendix 2 the fourth comment on ‘love’ it’ responses from Greater Eston
3
refers to ‘good bus services for other shops, (Redcar/Middlesbrough). The Square
flowerbeds are ‘lovely’. This will have been coded under the ‘public transport’ theme,
(where it is shown), but also for the tables under the ‘parks, open spaces and flower
displays’ theme. The number of responses listed under each theme may therefore not
add up to the number shown in the tables because of the multiple response nature of the
tables. Appendix 3 shows the comments ordered by the Ward to which the respondents
were referring.
A rea of Cons ultation Total
Wider R&C Borough
Greater Eston (ex cl. Greater Es ton)
Count Col % Count Col % Count Col %
Redc ar 404 30.0% 404 22.7%
Saltburn 155 11.5% 155 8.7%
Normanby 52 12.0% 52 2.9%
Teesv ille 17 3.9% 17 1.0%
Ormesby 48 11.1% 48 2.7%
Es ton 53 12.3% 53 3.0%
Whale Hill 22 5.1% 22 1.2%
Lazenby 5 1.2% 27 2.0% 32 1.8%
South Bank 186 43.1% 186 10.4%
Grangetow n 49 11.3% 49 2.8%
Guisborough 304 22.6% 304 17.1%
New Marske 54 4.0% 54 3.0%
Skelton 13 1.0% 13 .7%
Brotton 38 2.8% 38 2.1%
Lof tus 59 4.4% 59 3.3%
Marske 154 11.4% 154 8.7%
Moors holm 8 .6% 8 .4%
Lingdale 5 .4% 5 .3%
Skinningrov e 28 2.1% 28 1.6%
Carlin How 99 7.3% 99 5.6%
Total 432 100.0% 1348 100.0% 1780 100.0%
Note: Respondents identified on the cards the area to which they were referring. Some
respondents from Lazenby identified that they were referring to their ward, others to the Eston
area.
This report has been structured to provide the following information:
SECTION 1: An initial over view of the ‘love it’ and ‘hate it’ issues across the whole
Borough
SECTION 2: The ‘love’ it’ and ‘hate’ it’ issues for Greater Eston and for the wider
Borough with a qualitative description of the issues that the themes refer to
SECTION 3: A quantitative review of the issues by each Ward
SECTION 1: An initial over view of the ‘love it’ and ‘hate it’ issues
across the whole Borough
4
1.1 ‘LOVE’ IT RESPONSES
1.1.1 In total 1303 positive, (‘love’ it’) comments were made. A number of key themes
emerged across the Borough about which residents had positive views. These were the
proximity to the sea, the coast, the countryside and the beautiful views available to
residents, which 16.5% of residents responding to the consultation identified.
‘Love It’ Themes: Key issues mentioned by more than 3% of all respondents
(% - all respondents)
All responses
18 16.5
16 13.9
14
12
10 9
7.3 7.1 All responses
8
6 4.6
3.8 3.7 3.7
4
2
0
e
e
e
ts
s
es
t
e
n
iri
ag
sid
sid
ay
ur
re
ke
sp
it i
is
rit
ld
pl
ar
ea
try
cil
/le
hi
He
is
ity
/m
fa
un
ls
/c
rd
ts
un
ng
th
er
na
co
or
we
m
ou
th
pi
Sp
t io
a/
m
flo
O
op
ry
Se
di
Co
s/
Sh
tra
fo
rk
es
Pa
liti
ci
Fa
1.1.2 Also noted by more than one in ten of all respondents were the parks, open spaces and
flower displays, (13.9%). A further major positive element of the area in which they live is
the ‘community spirit’ or ‘identity’ and ‘local pride’ with 9% of all respondents making
comment on this.
5
1.1.3 The table below shows the key themes by the Borough, by the Borough excluding
Greater Eston and by the Greater Eston Area.
‘Love’ it’ Themes by Area: % of respondents in the Whole Borough and by Key Areas
Borough of Wider Borough Greater Eston
R&C
Allotments 0.3 0.4
Buses/Public transport 1.7 1.4 2.5
Medical Facilities 1.1 0.9 1.6
Sea/countryside 16.5 20.6 3.5
Sports/leisure 4.6 5.1 3
Other facilities 3.7 4.3 1.6
Employment, work, business 0.9 0.7 1.4
Community spirit 9 9.4 7.6
Wildlife 0.6 0.6 0.7
Parks/flower displays 13.9 15.3 9.5
Heritage 7.3 9.1 1.6
Cleanliness/maintenance 2.2 2.7 0.9
General improvements 2.5 1.8 4.9
Facilities for youth/children 3.7 3.9 3
Education 1.8 1.9 1.6
Public art 2.8 3.3 1.2
Cycleways 2.5 3 1.2
Shopping/markets 7.1 6.5 9
Library 1 1 1.2
Community safety 1.3 0.7 3.5
Forests/woods 2.9 3.7 0.2
Homes/housing 2 0.9 5.3
Disabled access 0.2 0.2 0.2
traditional seaside 3.8 5 0.2
Bakehouse Square 0.6 0.7 0
Traffic/roads 1.2 1.1 1.6
Museums 1.9 2.4 0
Boats 0.6 0.8 0
Christmas lights 0.8 0.7 1.4
Theatre/arts 0.4 0.5 0
Priory 1.5 1.9 0.2
Racecourse 1.1 1.4 0.2
Parking 0.3 0.4 0
Lighting 0.3 0.3 0.5
1.1.4 It should be noted that some of the comments were ‘aspirational’ rather than
commenting upon what currently exists. Details of the themes and their meaning are
explored fully in Section 2 of this report.
6
1.2 ‘HATE’ IT RESPONSES
1.2.1 Rather more responses referred to ‘hate it’ than ‘love it’ comments with 1473 comments
relating to negative issues being raised.
‘Hate It’ Themes: Key issues mentioned by more than 5% of all respondents
(% - all respondents)
All responses
16 14.4
14
11.5
12
9.8
10 8.9
7.5 7.1
8 6.2 6.1 6 5.6
6 5.2
4
2
0
Ge Bo Sh Ta An Tr Ca Ac Ge Sp Pu
ne ar op ke ti s a ff rp t iv ne or bli
de aw ic/ it ie ts/ ct
ra
lm d u s/sh ay oc ca ar
kin sf
ra
l ru lei ra n
a in pe op
p in s/c ial b lm
ing g or nd su
re sp
ten mp ha eh yo ow fac or
gf rity av , ro u th t
an ty ac io u ad /ch na ilit
ce ho ilit sh r s/f pp ies
/cl us ies op oo ild ea
ea es s tpa re ran
n li /sh n
ne op th s ce
ss s /ey
/ lit es
ter or
es
1.2.2 Over one in ten residents raised the issue of ‘general cleanliness, general maintenance
and litter’, (14.4%); and commented upon ‘boarded up and empty shops and houses’,
(11.5%). ‘Shops and shopping facilities’, (9.8%); and ‘takeaways and charity shops’,
(8.9%); were also mentioned by nearly one in ten respondents.
1.2.3 It is noticeable that the issues mentioned by the largest percentage of respondents were
more predominant in the wider Borough. For example 10.1% of respondents living in the
wider Borough excluding Greater Eston commented upon the overprovision of
‘takeaways and charity shops’ compared with 5.1% in Greater Eston.
1.2.4 Anti social behaviour was noted more often amongst the responses from the Greater
Eston area, (9.5%), than the wider Borough, (6.9%); although other issues such as a
requirement for good quality ‘shops and shopping facilities’, was common for both the
Greater Eston, (9.0%), and the wider Borough, (10.1%).
7
‘Hate it’ Themes by Area: % of respondents in Whole Borough and in Key Areas
Borough of R&C Wider Borough Greater Eston
anti social behaviour 7.5 6.9 9.5
boarded up empty houses/shops 11.5 13.3 6
public transport 5.2 4.5 7.4
car parking 6.2 7 3.7
takeaways/charity shops 8.9 10.1 5.1
amusements 0.4 0.6 0
traffic/calming, roads/footpaths 7.1 7.9 4.4
shops/shopping facilities 9.8 10.1 9
activities for youth/children 6.1 5.6 7.4
development/planning 4.8 5 4.4
sports/leisure facilities 5.6 6.8 2.1
rented properties/landlords 1.3 1 2.1
dog fouling 4.3 5.5 0.5
medical facilities 1.2 0.9 2.3
community safety 2.8 2.1 5.1
wind turbines 0.8 1.1 0
lack of respect/pride/identity 1.3 1.2 1.6
graffiti 2.3 2.7 0.9
housing 1.1 0.9 1.9
general maintenance/cleanliness/litter 14.4 16.8 7.2
need to preserve heritage 0.8 0.8 0.9
post office 0.3 0.4 0
street and other lighting 1.5 1.8 0.7
public toilets 1.1 1.2 0.9
refuse collection/recycling 2.4 2.6 1.6
alcohol/drug misuse 1.2 1.3 0.9
economy/business/jobs 1.7 1.9 1.2
traditional facilities 1.9 2.3 0.7
racecourse 0.1 0.1 0
fly tipping/posting 0.5 0.4 0.9
education 0.6 0.7 0.5
allotments 0.1 0.1 0
general run down appearance/eyesores 6 6 5.8
encourage tourism/promote heritage 0.8 1 0
access disabled/pushchairs 0.4 0.5 0
cycle tracks/cycling 1.3 1.5 0.7
public art, railings, fencing 1.4 1.5 1.2
environmental improvements 1.3 1.3 1.6
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
8
SECTION 2: The ‘love’ it’ and ‘hate’ it’ issues for the wider
Borough excluding Greater Eston and for Greater Eston with a
qualitative description of the issues that the themes refer to
The following section gives further detail on the themes that emerged. To assist the
reading of the report the percentage of respondents from each area and the page
number from Appendix 2 showing the actual comments have been included in the text.
Appendix 2 sets out the comments by themes sorted by the first theme mentioned.
(NOTE 2: Each comment may contain more than one theme, For example amongst the
comments on page 2 of Appendix 2 are the comments relating to public transport with
one including a comment on the flower beds in the Square in Eston. This will have been
multi coded in the tables as relating to both ‘buses and public transport’ and ‘parks and
open spaces/flower displays’. i.e. ‘Good bus service for other shops (Redcar/ Middlesbrough)
The square flower beds are lovely.’)
2.1 ‘LOVE’ IT ISSUES – WIDER BOROUGH (EXCLUDING GREATER ESTON)
2.1.1 Allotments (0.4%, p9) included both the availability of allotments and a requirement for
more. The latter comments included the need for improvements to allotments, (Rectory
Lane), and for the need to support healthy living and eating by providing more land for
allotments.
2.1.2 There were positive comments about the existing Buses and Public Transport (1.4%, p9)
in the provision and frequency of services. Other comments were that people would
‘love’ to see cheaper transport.
2.1.3 Amongst the Medical Facilities (0.9%, p9) participants ‘loved’ were the ‘new hospital at
Redcar’, that doctors and dentists were ‘all in one place’ and the ‘new pharmacy’. There
was some concern expressed here about the ‘proposed relocation of Woodside
Surgery’, where participants ‘would ‘love’ to have this stay in the same place or satellite
facilities being available.
2.1.4 The Proximity of Sea, Countryside, and Beautiful Views (20.6%, p9 to 16) were
mentioned by over one in five respondents from the wider Borough, excluding Greater
Eston, making this the key aspect of the area most ‘loved’ by residents.
2.1.5 Access to natural and ‘unspoilt’ areas of countryside; the opportunities for walking, views
of the sea, fishing; sun-bathing; opportunities to join voluntary groups involved in the
countryside and other aspects were all mentioned here. In addition the nearness of
these facilities and the ease of access in short periods of time were important.
9
2.1.6 Sports and Leisure Facilities (5.1%, p15 &16) that participants ‘loved’ included existing
facilities such as football pitches, Loftus Leisure Centre, Saltburn Golf Course, etc.
Nevertheless other participants would ‘love’ the provision of other sports facilities
especially such as swimming baths, (Redcar and Marske).
2.1.7 A number of Other Local Facilities (4.3%, p16 &17) were noted as being currently ‘loved’
or would be ‘loved’ should they be provided. These included cafes or coffee shops on
the seafront, the tearoom at Saltburn Valley Gardens, chip shops, the ‘fossil garden’;
free car parking, and banks. Lack of facilities such as public toilets and restaurants,
(especially a revolving restaurant on the site of Leo’s), were commented upon.
2.1.8 Employment, Workforce, Business (0.7%, p17 & 18) tended to relate to aspiration and
the need for economic development to provide jobs rather than to the current provision.
The racecourse was mentioned here as a source of employment and as ‘a vital
economic factor’ for Redcar Town Centre.
2.1.9 Community Spirit, Identity, Local Pride (9.4% p18 to 20) was clearly an important
positive factor of the wider Borough with nearly one in ten respondents commenting
upon their ‘love’ of the local area, the character and community spirit and their pride in
the beauty of the environment. Many noted that they had lived in the area for many
years and had happy memories, others that they enjoyed village life; others that they
were proud of the people and their heritage. It was noted by some participants from
Skinningrove that the community spirit exhibited during the floods had given them an
even more positive view of the area.
2.1.10 Wildlife (0.6%, p20) of the area was mentioned as being ‘loved’ including the birds and
other wildlife in Coatham dunes and the suggestion of a wildlife park being set up on
land adjacent to a village hall.
2.1.11 Parks and Open Spaces/Flower Displays (15.3%, p20 to 24) mentioned by over one in
seven of all respondents was also a key area of positive attraction within the wider
Borough area. Noted here were parks and gardens such as Locke Park, Saltburn in
Bloom, Challenor Street; Marske flowerbeds and regeneration of Valley Gardens in
Marske. Other areas mentioned were Skelton Park, the trees in Westgate and the flower
tubs and baskets in the Priory amongst many many others.
2.1.12 The Priory in Guisborough and other buildings were mentioned in respect of Heritage
and Architecture (9.1%, p24 to 26). However, in the main the thrust of comments relating
to heritage and history pertained to the nature of the Victorian towns and the features
and buildings of these with the emphasis being on preserving and restoring these.
10
2.1.13 Cleanliness and Maintenance (2.7%, p27) issues included general comments on the
need to ensure or improve it but also referred to specific areas for cleaning such as
‘Chapel Beck’, or Kilton Lane.
2.1.14 General Improvements to the area (1.8%, p27) were noted such as work carried out to
the sea front, the demolition of ‘Leo’s’, to Saltburn, Skinningrove, Skelton Green and
Marske Participants also commented on general improvements that they would ‘love’ to
see’, such as the regeneration of the Westfield estate.
2.1.15 Facilities for Young People/Children (3.9%, p28) included the need for and the provision
of youth clubs, play areas and the improvements of the same, sure start activities, (said
to assist with the building of community spirit); and village greens.
2.1.16 Freeborough College and the Lawrence Jackson schools were mentioned as ‘loved’
Education Facilities (1.9%, p28 & 29), as was Redcar College, Ryehills School, (due to
its campaign dealing with bullies); and Saltburn Junior. The question was asked in
respect of education facilities as to why there was no U3A, (University of the Third Age),
in Redcar.
2.1.17 Public Art (3.3%, p29) comments included praise of the ‘penguins’, ‘trees with faces’ and
the ‘upside down fish’. It was suggested that there was a need to provide public art in
areas other than the town centre.
2.1.18 Cycle Tracks/Walkways (3.0%, p29 to 30) included the Guisborough walkway, the trail to
Pinchinthorpe and other rural and urban walks were noted here. Further developments
suggested included a footpath from New Marske to Redcar, a tourist trail and opening
the pedestrian routes to cycles.
2.1.19 A number of comments received were in praise of the current shopping offerings
including Bakehouse Square, (noted later also); and markets when Shopping/Markets
(6.5%, p30 to 32) were included. However, the comments in the main were aspirational,
with participants seeking developments and improvements to shopping facilities.
2.1.20 Community Safety (0.7%, p32) when discussed in respect of positive aspects tended to
relate to the area being ‘peaceful’ and ‘safe’ although comments on additional security
mechanisms included the need for lighting and further CCTV coverage.
2.1.21 Guisborough Forest, Errington Woods, Forestry Commission land and Kirkleatham
Woods were all praised in respect of Forests/Woods (3.7%, p32 to 33). Woodland walks
were also noted as being ‘loved’.
11
2.1.22 Homes/Housing (0.9%, p33) positive aspects included how the Council has worked with
Coast and Country, new flats in Redcar, the upgrading of housing in Saltburn. There
were also the future aspirations that housing in Marske will not affect the character of the
areas and that some of the flats above shops in Marske will be improved.
2.1.23 Disabled Access (0.2%, p33) in Westgate in Redcar was said to be good and therefore
‘loved’.
2.1.24 Traditional Facilities (5.0%, p34 to 35) such as Saltburn pier, Redcar Bandstand, the cliff
lift and the boating lake were ‘loved’ by participants from the wider Borough.
2.1.25 Bakehouse Square (0.7%, page 35) as noted above was ‘loved’ apparently due to the
redevelopment of the same.
2.1.26 Traffic/Roads (1.1%, p35) with easy access, control over developments, road gritting
and in some areas the speed ramps, (Coach Road), were praised. The traffic free High
Street was also considered to be a positive aspect. A one-way traffic system in Lord
Street would be welcomed.
2.1.27 Access to free Museums (2.4%, p35 to 36), and especially the Kirkleatham Museum,
(mentioned by many participants); the Tom Leonard’s Museum, Guisborough Priory,
Staithes Harbour were also mentioned here. A ‘ticket’ to cover entrance to all museums
was suggested.
2.1.28 Boats (0.8%, p36) from the fishing boats, boats on the boating lake and the lifeboat were
all noted as facilities ‘loved’.
2.1.29 Participants noted that they had ‘loved’ the Christmas Lights (0.7%, p36) and the
Theatre / Arts (0.5%, p36) facilities such as the Saltburn Artists Studio and the
Swashbuckle Event.
2.1.30 Guisborough Priory (1.9%, p36) was a much ‘loved’ facility for residents of the wider
Borough, and the Racecourse (1.4%, p37) was also a feature of the area that
participants felt the need to retain.
2.1.31 Parking (0.4%, p37), and the requirement for this to be free was a facility ‘loved’ by
respondents and the lights at Saltburn Millennium Green, were noted as ‘loved’ when
Other lighting, (0.3%, p38) was discussed. This theme also included a need for more
street lighting in areas such as close to community centres, etc.
12
2.1.32 Other (7.9%, p38 to 41) issues, as in the Greater Eston area, related to a wide variety of
comments including being pleased to have been involved in the consultation, being part
of North Yorkshire, that the Leo’s site has been demolished and many other individual
issues.
13
2.2 ‘HATE’ IT ISSUES – WIDER BOROUGH (EXCLUDING GREATER ESTON)
2.2.1 Worries about Anti-social Behaviour/Vandalism (6.9%, p53 to 55) were prolific amongst
the comments. Some participants simply commented that anti-social behaviour was
occurring others identified instances of this such as noise, damage to play areas,
nappies being dropped in car parks, wheelie bins being set on fire, and gangs of youths
acting in an intimidating manner in the evenings.
2.2.2 Boarded Up/Empty Shops and Houses (13.3%, p55 to 58) were a major issue with over
one in seven respondents from the wider Borough commenting on this. Some
participants simply regretted this; others identified shops in Marske, Guisborough,
Skinningrove, Redcar and other areas. Not only were shops boarded up but also some
were said to be derelict. Houses and garages currently unused and falling into decay
were commented upon, with some of these being said to be in the ownership of the
Council/Coast and Country.
2.2.3 Concerns were expressed about the removal of services and the age of the buses were
also expressed in the Wider Borough and these have been themed under Bus
Services/Public Transport (4.5%, p58 to 60). Amongst the bus services commented
upon negatively were the bus service to New Marske, direct buses to Saltburn; buses
from Middlesbrough to Redcar beach; the need to link or coordinate services better; the
need to reinstate local rail services; and simply a need to improve or even provide
services.
2.2.4 Aspects of Car Parking (7.0%, p50 to 62) ‘hated’ included charges for parking at
hospitals; lack of or inconsiderate parking in residential areas; double parking or parking
on High Street pavements; disc parking in Windy Hill; and lack of parking for example in
towns such as Loftus. Traffic hazards caused by parking for example in St Germains,
were also noted, concern about the design of car parks, for example the bollards in
Roseberry Square car park, and parking on grass verges were all mentioned here.
2.2.5 A major issue, mentioned as being ‘hated’ by more than one in ten participants was that
of the proliferation of Charity Shops/Takeaways (10.1%, p62 to 65) and the perceived
consequence of a lack of quality shops, and the litter emanating from the takeaways.
2.2.6 A number of participants ‘hated’ the Amusements (0.6%, p65), the amusement arcades,
the proliferation of gambling places and ‘Mungle Jungle’.
2.2.7 As the description suggests the theme Traffic/Traffic Calming, Roads/Footpaths (7.9%, p
65 to 68) included issues to do with traffic management, and the maintenance of roads
and footpaths. Examples in respect of traffic management include Chaloner Street
being described as a ‘rat run’, a lack of crossings on the coast road, and there being 17
access roads onto North Road. Hummersea Lane purportedly, amongst many others.
14
Pavements include such areas as Dorset Road, on the seafront, and the cobbles, for
example in Loftus High Street. Views on traffic calming were diverse with some
participants hating that it is there at all and others hating that it does not slow the traffic
sufficiently or is not there to do so.
2.2.8 As may be expected following on from the comments on the proliferation of charity
shops and takeaways, Shops and Shopping Facilities (10.1%, p68 to 70) in the wider
Borough were considered to be insufficient for the needs of the local people and the loss
of shops making the towns feel ‘dormant’ and ‘neglected’. This also was said to have a
detrimental affect upon tourism with several participants suggesting that the local
authority has the power to lower business rates or reduce rent in order to encourage
traders to return or to remain. The lack of named multi national stores and the location of
others, e.g. Tescos, were also said to have a detrimental effect and were therefore
‘hated’ by respondents.
2.2.9 Activities for Youth/Children (5.6%, p70 to 72) were lacking and this has an effect upon
behaviour. Both teenagers, children and toddler facilities were said to be lacking and
suggestions such as the provision of youth clubs, playgrounds, skate parks, BMX tracks,
and support for those who provide facilities, were all suggested here.
2.2.10 A number of participants in the wider Borough ‘hated’ using green land for development
and building new homes when older homes remain unoccupied. Also included under the
theme of Development/Planning/Building on Green Areas (5.0%, p72 to 73) were
buildings believed not to be in keeping with the area, and the ‘over development’ of
towns and villages which may impact on the sense of community and/or spoil the views
of existing residents.
2.2.11 Sports and Leisure Facilities (6.8%, p73 to 75), or the lack or loss of them was a feature
‘hated’ by some participants. The loss of the speedway, the lack of a swimming pool and
other sports facilities; a requirement for restaurants and indoor leisure facilities were all
mentioned here.
2.2.12 Private landlords in the main were cited in relation to issues ‘hated’ about Rented
Properties/Landlords (1.0%, p75), with landlords not taking care of their properties and
not monitoring their tenants. Some concern was expressed about Coast and Country
also not enforcing tenancy agreements relating to the behaviour of tenants.
2.2.13 Dog Fouling (5.5%, p75 to 77) and the owners who do not clear up after their dogs was
an issue mentioned across the wider Borough by over one in twenty respondents. In the
main this related to fouling of pavements but also included here were comments about
the need for dog waste bins.
15
2.2.14 Medical Facilities (0.9%, p77) or again the lack of them was an issue for a small number
of participants. The moving of the doctor’s surgery in Loftus and the Westfield Estate
provision, together with the perceived lack of facilities in Marske were mentioned here.
2.2.15 Security lighting, visible policing, wardens and CCTV were mentioned in respect of what
people ‘hated’ about Community Safety (2.1%, p77 & 78). In addition banned drivers
continuing to drive and the affect of anti-social behaviour were mentioned as being
deleterious to community safety.
2.2.16 The erection of Wind Turbines (1.1%, page 78) in Tees Bay because of how they will
look and the expectation of a low output from them were hated by a number of
respondents.
2.2.17 Lack of Respect/Pride/Identity (1.2%, p78), whilst being an element ‘loved’ by some
participants, the lack of it as defined by others was also an issue to be ‘hated’. Some
participants spoke of the negative attitude of others, the lack of community involvement
and the lack of respect of the area.
2.2.18 Graffiti (2.7%, p79) was said to be in a wide variety of places, boarded up houses and
shops, bus shelters, in the parks (Guisborough), and on council owned property on
Southfield Road in Marske, Roseberry Square and other places unspecified.
2.2.19 Housing (0.9%, p79) and housing development were issues ‘hated’ by some participants
with concerns about increased traffic and under provision of amenities to support new
residents. Worries were also expressed about Coast and Country responsibilities, about
a lack of affordable housing and the need for supported accommodation for people with
disabilities.
2.2.20 One in six of all respondents in the wider Borough excluding Eston expressed concerns
about General Maintenance/Cleanliness/Litter (16.8%, p80 to 84). Issues included
chewing gum, litter, beck areas, and damaged street furniture. In addition the
maintenance of grassed areas was said to be poor by some participants, with litter
strewn about in some parks such as Carlin Howe, and on the beach and other areas.
There was also said to be a lack of street cleaning.
2.2.21 There is a perceived Need to Preserve Old Buildings (0.8%, p85) and to maintain the
architectural heritage. Examples included the Co-op in Skinningrove, Wilkinson’s in
Redcar and the education centre in Guisborough. There was also a concern about the
loss of the Post Office (0.4%, p85) with the village of Moorsholm being exampled here.
2.2.22 The lack of other amenities ‘hated’ included Street and Other Lighting (1.8%, p85) and
Public Toilets (1.2%, p85 to 86). Better street lights were required both for security and
16
safety purpose. Christmas lights and Christmas decoration, (in Brotton and on Redcar
front), were cited as being ‘hated’, as were the lights on the Skelton bypass, described
as a ‘waste of money’. Lack of public toilets or toilets shutting early were also a matter
for negative (‘hated’) views.
2.2.23 As with the Greater Eston responses, Refuse Collection/Recycling (2.6%, p86 to 87)
issues related in large part to the fortnightly household waste collection but also to the
‘inconsistent’ and ‘overly complicated’ recycling procedures. Lack of collection of
recyclables was also a cause for complaint. The costs of bulky household waste
collection was also an aspect of service ‘hated’ by some participants.
2.2.24 Public Drinking of Alcohol/Drug Misuse (1.3%, p87) were aspects of life in the wider
Borough ‘hated’ by a number of participants. Broken glass from public drinking and
people dealing and taking drugs were mentioned here.
2.2.25 There is a need to attract industry to the area in order to ensure healthy a
Economy/Business/Jobs (1.9%, p87). Some issues here related to the retail economy
and the perceived need to lower costs for retailers so that they may continue to survive
and provide a service. Other issues related to larger industries such as Enron and
Corus. That there is a lack of jobs’ is ‘hated’ together with the lack of apprenticeships for
young people.
2.2.26 For the towns in the Borough by the seaside there is a need for traditional facilities such
as Boating Lake/Bandstand and Other Traditional Facilities (2.3%, p87 to 88). Concerns
were expressed about the bandstand ‘being in the wrong place’. There was also concern
about the Racecourse (0.1%) moving to ‘Dunsdale’.
2.2.27 Fly tipping (0.4%, p88) in Kilton Lane, and South Gate amongst other places was also
‘hated’.
2.2.28 There was a concern about the increase in fees for Adult Education (0.7%, p88). In
addition participants mentioned that they ‘hated’ that there is a need for a new nursery,
and that there is an ‘erosion of the best assets’ such as Northgate School.
2.2.29 Allotments (0.1%, p88) and the need for more land to be provided for them to promote
growing fruit and vegetables was also noted in the responses from people in the wider
Borough excluding Eston.
2.2.30 General Run Down Appearance/Eyesores (6.0%, p89 to 91) included buildings such as
the Co-op building, Coatham Hotel ballroom; the Regent Cinema, Ganton House and the
Congregational Chapel on Westfield Terrace amongst other buildings mentioned. In
17
addition general comments about the run down appearance of shops, flats and some
public houses and other areas were ‘hated’.
2.2.31 The Need to Encourage/Promote Heritage (1.0%, p91 to 92) and the consequences of
not doing so were ‘hated’ by participants, some of whom felt that there should be tourist
information officers and others that the ‘good points’ of the area are insufficiently
publicised. Such points included the promotion of the Lifeboat Museum and promoting
fairs and markets at Guisborough. Community groups involved in promoting the area
and parts thereof should receive more encouragement from the Council it was
suggested.
2.2.32 A number of areas of difficulty for the Access for Disabled/Pushchairs (0.5%, p92) were
highlighted by participants. These included, amongst others, not having access to shops,
the Hazel Grove path to the sea and the lack of dropped kerbs.
2.2.33 Cycle Tracks/Cycling (1.5%, p92) were of concern both because people were allowed to
cycle, (e.g. forest walking paths with bikes not giving an audible means of approach);
and for the need for cycle paths and areas for children to learn to ride.
2.2.34 Public Art/Railings/Fencing (1.5%, p92 to 93) were cause for some different views.
Some participants felt that public art such as the ‘cast iron sculptures’ were a waste of
money, with others ‘hating the steel fish’ and others having an artist to paint the sea wall
at Redcar.
2.2.35 However, others ‘loved’ these features as noted earlier in this report. Fencing such as
that at Coatham Enclosure was criticised as were the steel fences round the ‘old care
home on Lord Street’ and the wire mesh fencing on Thrush Road in Redcar.
2.2.36 Environmental Improvements (1.3%, p93 to 94) included caring for the environment, the
use of ‘plastic’ windows, the colour of Errington School and the need for flower beds. In
addition issues relating to flag poles and sign posts were also mentioned here.
2.2.37 A variety of Other (5.3%, p94 to 96) responses were given. Included amongst these
were comments on the consultation; on being called Cleveland rather than Yorkshire;
comment upon the equitable sharing of resources between towns in the Borough,
traveller’s caravans and many other topics.
18
The ‘love’ it’ and ‘hate’ it’ issues for Greater Eston with a
qualitative description of the issues that the themes refer to
2.3 Background to Greater Eston Consultation
2.3.1 The Greater Eston Strategic Masterplan produced in 2008 set out the baseline analysis
of Greater Eston and proposes a range of interventions in order to regenerate Greater
Eston. This work has been further distilled and forms the basis of a set of Officer
recommendations for “Greater Eston – A New Perspective, The Greater Eston Delivery
Plan”. The Delivery Plan outlines the vision, opportunities and proposed interventions
to improve Greater Eston and forms the basis of attracting and monitoring
investment. Its purpose is to provide information on future strengths and weaknesses,
look at how those weaknesses can be tackled and what opportunities need to be
grasped in order to maximize the regeneration benefit for Greater Eston.
2.3.2 A New Perspective sets out the delivery framework in Greater Eston by breaking down
interventions/activities into 5 key areas:
- Create homes for the future
- Develop spaces to breathe and places to be proud of
- Create healthy and safe communities with plenty to do
- Ensure Greater Eston is Prosperous and skilled
- Shouting about it (communication with residents, partners and
stakeholders)
2.3.3 It was clear that following the creation of A New Perspective that consultation needed to
be carried out with residents, partners and stakeholders to inform them of the work that
had been done This consultation and the exhibitions may have affected the responses
from residents completing the ‘love it/hate it’ response mechanisms.
2.3.4 The following section gives further detail on the themes that emerged. To assist the
reading of the report the percentage of respondents from each area and the page
number from Appendix 2 showing the actual comments have been included in the text.
Appendix 2 sets out the comments by themes sorted by the first theme mentioned.
19
2.4 ‘LOVE’ IT ISSUES – GREATER ESTON
2.4.1 Issues relating to Buses and Public Transport (2.5%, p1) included comments on the
need to publicise the ‘Rover’ ticket to a greater extent, the need for more services, and in
praise of services that exist.
2.4.2 Medical Facilities (1.6%, p1) were all concerned with praise of the ‘Health Village’ and
worries about the availability of access.
2.4.3 Access to both the sea and countryside were positively commented upon as valued
aspects of living in the area under the heading of Proximity of Sea, Countryside,
Beautiful Views (3.5%, p1).
2.4.4 Sports and Leisure Facilities (3.0%, p1 &2) were in part aspirational, (i.e. ‘would ‘love’ to
have’); and partly in praise of existing facilities, (e.g. Eston Leisure Centre and parks
facilities).
2.4.5 Other Local Facilities (1.6%, p2) included local banks, street furniture, (including
sufficiency of litter bins of sufficient capacity). One person from South Bank also
mentioned the newly refurbished toilets in Redcar.
2.4.6 The development of the area which would hopefully have a positive effect on
Employment, Workforce, Business (1.4%, p2), the ‘enterprise island’ and the Skippers
Lane retail park were mentioned, together with at least one person seeking opportunity
to relocate into the centre of the district, which may be Low Grange but was not stated in
the comments..
2.4.7 Community Spirit, Identity, Local Pride (7.6%, p2 & 3) related to the people and the
friendliness of the community; the memories of participants; the community forums and
the pleasantness of the area.
2.4.8 Parks and Open Spaces/Flower Displays (9.5%, p3 & 4) were valued aspects of living in
the area in which they do by participants. Against some of the issues related to currently
available facilities such as the railway path to Normanby, the Millennium Green, and the
park area on Church Lane in Grangetown. Other comments related to changes in areas
such as appeared in the Greater Eston masterplan.
2.4.9 Local history, Heritage and Architecture (1.6%, p4) were general to an extent but also
included the ‘pill box’ in the field at Low Grange Farm as a ‘mark of history and
nostalgia’.
20
2.4.10 Cleanliness and Maintenance (0.9%, p4) was mainly aspirational: what is required
currently and will be required relating to the new developments. Nevertheless some
participants commented favourably on the Council efforts to keep the area clean.
2.4.11 General Improvements to the area (4.9%, p4) include the need for change and
development and investment in the area.
2.4.12 Whilst the young person’s bus was appreciated, there was thought to be a need for
further provision of Facilities for Young People/Children (3.0%, p5).
2.4.13 Education Facilities (1.6%, p5) included the provision of adult education, especially the
reductions for people in receipt of benefits; sure start, and the new school designs.
2.4.14 Public Art (1.2%, p5) was said by some to be a necessity for all areas, with the ‘penny
farthing’ coming in for especial praise.
2.4.15 The ‘bike track’, the ‘go kart track’ and the ‘black path stroll to Redcar’ all were praised
and have been described under the heading Cycle Tracks/Walkways (1.2%, p5).
2.4.16 Shopping/Markets (9.0%, p5 &6) comments were largely a requirement for the future,
with a perceived need to open large supermarkets, retain or re-open markets; the idea
of the new shopping centre at Eston and improvements to other local shops.
Nevertheless, the retention of village shops in one area and Asda at South Bank were
noted as currently available facilities that were ‘loved’.
2.4.17 Participants were pleased to note that there is to be a new library at South Bank, and
praised the library staff under the theme of Library (1.2%, p6).
2.4.18 The PCSO’s in Grangetown and other areas were commented upon favourably under
the heading of Community Safety (3.5%, p6). Also positively commented upon was the
provision of CCTV, although some were concerned about whether this was monitored.
2.4.19 Homes/Housing (5.3%, p6 &7) mostly concerned the aspiration for ‘better housing’ and
for ‘cheaper’ housing for purchase or rent, although the Coast and Country bungalows in
Normanby Road were commented upon favourably. There was also thought to be a
need for more ‘shared ownership’ type housing in South Bank.
2.4.20 Access was an issue raised under Traffic/Roads (1.6%, p7), as was the redevelopment
of the Trunk Road.
21
2.4.21 Lights and Lighting (1.4%, p7) , and Christmas decorations, although noted as having
been absent or poor in previous years were considered to be a positive attribute and the
new street lights in other areas, including Normanby Road, were thought to be good. A
request for earlier switching on of the lights on Golden Boy Green was included in the
requests.
2.4.22 Other Issues (6.6%, p8 & 9) included a variety of other issues, some concerns and other
questions relating to the exhibitions. Examples here included how developments will be
maintained in the future; when refurbishments might commence; what will happen to
Bolckow Road shops and what will happen if the money is not available or ‘runs out’
prior to the developments being completed. Some participants also referred to specific
numbers when discussing the issues. These have not been included here.
22
2.5 ‘HATE’ IT ISSUES – GREATER ESTON
2.5.1 Anti-social Behaviour and Vandalism (9.5%, p4) were issues mentioned in respect of
youths and children, with the word ‘gangs’ used in respect to both. Anti social behaviour
included noise, speeding cars, damage to trees and fires being set in parks.
2.5.2 Boarded Up/Empty Shops and Houses (6.0%, p41 to 42) and the appearance of
dereliction that this brings were ‘hated’ by some respondents. Even the ‘green shutters’
put in place to deter vandalism to untenanted properties were ‘hated’ as these drew
attention to there being void properties.
2.5.3 Whilst some participants had ‘loved’ the availability of Bus Services/Public Transport
(7.4%, p42 to 43), others noted this as something they ‘hated’. Causes for complaint
included the lack of services to specific areas; the circuitous routes of others; the age of
the buses used; and the lack of bus shelters. Concerns were expressed here about the
availability of transport to the proposed new health village for those who live beyond
walking distance from it.
2.5.4 Lack of Car Parking (3.7%, p43) facilities were another issue ‘hated’ by some
respondents in the Greater Eston area. These included lack of disabled parking, (and/or
the misuse of spaces); car parking outside of schools, takeaways and some other shops,
(e.g. Netto). However, the main issue appeared to be residential parking or lack of it.
2.5.5 Charity Shops/Takeaways (5.1%, p43) were mentioned not just in respect of parking.
Participants were of the view that there were ‘too many’ of these, which give a ‘run down’
appearance to the area and, in addition takeaways are a ‘cause’ of litter.
2.5.6 ‘Hated’ aspects pertaining to Traffic/Traffic Calming, Roads/Footpaths (4.4%, p44)
included speeding cars, damaged road surfaces; perceived needs to change traffic
management schemes, (Runswick Road was an example where a one way system was
said to be needed), and traffic congestion. All schools going on to one site was also a
concern when commenting on issues to do with Education (0.5%, p50). The potential for
this adding or causing traffic problems was mentioned.
2.5.7 When participants added Shops and Shopping Facilities (9.0%, p44 & 45) to their list of
‘hated’ aspects, it was the lack of shops/quality of goods being sold, that was the main
point being made. Eston Square/Eston precinct was commented upon specifically in this
respect and also because of the ‘concrete’ and ‘run down’ appearance of this area. In
addition a number of participants commented upon the need for corner shops on their
local estates and the lack of supermarkets locally to them. As well as the appearance of
23
the shops in Eston, shops in Normanby Road were also criticised because of their
appearance.
2.5.8 Keeping young people off the streets, lack of play areas for both older and younger
children were both mentioned as part of the theme of Activities for Youth/Children (7.4%,
p45 &46). Although in a minority, some participants spoke of a lack of tolerance to young
people: a comment on neighbours complaining about parents playing with their children
in front of their homes was included.
2.5.9 Development/Planning/Building on Green Areas (4.4%, p46) related to concerns about
building on green land, the building of new homes when so many older houses remain
empty, and a concern that the ‘creation of an urban village’ will be detrimental to existing
centres such as South Bank, Normanby and Eston.
2.5.10 The lack of sports centres, playing fields, swimming baths, and parks and Finnegan Hall
were all mentioned by respondents on the issue of Sports and Leisure Facilities (2.1%,
p47). Also mentioned here were the ‘loss of the recreation ground at Stayplton School’
and the need for concert and sports halls.
2.5.11 Rented Properties/Landlords (2.1%, p47) comments referred in the main to rented
homes and ‘absentee’ or ‘negligent’ landlords who take ‘no control over the behaviour of
their tenants’.
2.5.12 Participants expressed concerns about the position of the Health Village under the
theme categorised as Medical Facilities (2.3%, p47). A number of participants did not
wish to relocate their GP practice to this, and several comments were received on the
perceived inappropriateness of locating in South Bank/Grangetown areas.
2.5.13 Community Safety (5.1%, p47 & 48) included the need for policing, wardens, (even dog
wardens), to control crime and anti social behaviour and the illegal use of drugs on land
where children play. ‘Hate’ crime, gangs of youths and fighting were also mentioned.
2.5.14 Participants noted as part of the ‘love’ it’ offering the pride and identity they had with the
area in which they live. Conversely a Lack of Respect/Pride/Identity, (1.6%, p48) was
also mentioned as part of the ‘hate’ it’ comments. In addition the lack of respect shown
by publicly swearing and not treating their homes with respect were also mentioned.
Graffiti (0.9%, p48) was mentioned as an issue by participants.
2.5.15 Housing (1.9%, p48) although linked by the subject matter referred to diverse issues
such as the housing allocations policy of the Council, (Coast and Country); the older
housing in South Bank; and the need for larger houses for families.
24
2.5.16 General Maintenance/Cleanliness/Litter (7.2%, p48 &49) referred to the general
cleanliness and appearance of the area with some participants referring to specific
areas, (e.g. the cut between Dorman and Churchill Roads); litter from fast food shops,
areas overgrown with weeds; grass verges, (some so narrow that they cannot be
maintained it was suggested); and the perceived lack of street cleaners.
2.5.17 Although some areas were deemed to be in urgent need of repair and void and derelict
properties were a cause for concern, a number of participants were concerned about the
potential loss of buildings with the consequent perceived Need to Preserve Old Buildings
(0.9%, p49). A number of participants also mentioned their concerns about Fly
tipping/Fly posting (0.9%, p50).
2.5.18 Street and Other Lighting (0.7%, p49) comments related to the need for security and
other facilities lacked included the need for Public Toilets (0.9%, p49), especially in
Eston, South Bank, Grangetown and Normanby.
2.5.19 Refuse Collection/Recycling (1.6%, p49 & 50) issues ‘hated’ by respondents included
the fortnightly collection of household waste and the need for more recycling facilities.
Comments were also made here about the collection of bulky household waste.
2.5.20 Drug use, drug dealing and drug detritus were amongst the issues mentioned relating to
Public Drinking of Alcohol/Drug Misuse (0.9%, p50), although drinking was also
commented upon here.
2.5.21 Concerns were expressed about Economy/Business/Jobs (1.2%, p50) with comments
also received about the ‘business park gates’ with these being ‘hated’ because of the
perceived costs.
2.5.22 General Run Down Appearance/Eyesores (5.8%, p50 & 51) were said to be ‘hated’ by a
number of participants. Areas mentioned here included Allendale shops, Eston Square,
King George’s Square and Bolckow Road shops. Other comments simply referred to a
‘degeneration’ of the area and a ‘sense of neglect’.
2.5.23 Lack of, poor maintenance and that some Cycle Tracks/Cycling (0.7%, p51) were
blocked off, were ‘hated’ by some participants.
2.5.24 Public Art/Railings/Fencing (1.2%, p51) especially the feature at Millennium Green were
thought to be a ‘waste of money’ by some.
25
2.5.25 Removal of trees and not removing trees that are blocking light were both mentioned
under the theme of Environmental Improvements (1.6%, p51), as was landscaping in
Tees Street, lack of maintenance of grassed areas in South Bank and general lack of
maintenance to trees and shrubs.
2.5.26 Other (10.4%, p51 & 52) as before were various and included comments on the
consultation, (needed to be longer and more in depth); on the spending of money in the
areas of South Bank and Grangetown ‘again’, reluctance about the term ‘Greater Eston’,
and worries about future funding of the proposed initiatives.
26
SECTION 3: A quantitative review of the issues by each Ward
The following graphs show the ‘love it’/’hate it’ responses from each ward. The number
of respondents from each ward was in some instances very low and therefore wards
should not be compared one with another for the magnitude of response, rather the
following should be used to highlight key issues arising within it.
27
3.1
S
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
ea
P /c
ar ou
ks nt
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
boarded up empty /fl ry
ow si
de
18.6
houses/shops er
di
18.6
tra sp
di la
t io ys
na
sports/leisure ls
12.9
ea
12.4
facilities si
de
H
O
er
ita 7.7
th ge
shops/shopping er
fa
5.7
11.9
facilities ci
lit
ie
s
P
5.2
REDCAR (based on 404 responses)
ub
general lic
maintenance/cleanli ar
t
11.9
M
28
5
ness/litter C us
om eu
m m
% response
s
Redcar - Hate it
un
Redcar - 'love it'
% response
S
4.5
takeaways/charity ho ity
9.7
pp sp
shops iri
in
g/ t
m
4.2
ar
ke
general run down R ts
ac
appearance/eyesore
4.2
6.9
ec
ou
s S rs
po
r ts e
4.2
/le
is
traffic/calming, ur
e
6.4
roads/footpaths
4
3.2
S
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
ea
/c
ou
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
nt
C ry
general om si
de
m
maintenance/cleanlin P
18.7
un
ess/litter
ar
ks
ity 18.7
/fl sp
iri
ow t
er
18.7
di
tra sp
di la
t io ys
na
8.4
14.2
anti social behaviour ls
ea
si
de
H
13.5
er
ita
Fa O ge
ci th
SALTBURN (based on 155 responses)
lit er
i f
11.6
es ac
dog fouling
7.7
29
fo ilit
ry ie
C s
Saltburn - Love It
ou
% response
le th
5.8
an
% response
Saltburn - Hate it
lin /c
hi
es ld
s/ re
m n
ai
5.8
nt
en
development/planning
6.5
an
Fo ce
re
5.2
st
s/
w
oo
ds
P
5.2
ub
refuse lic
6.5
ar
collection/recycling t
4.5
3.3 LAZENBY (based on 32 responses)
Lazenby - Love it
18.8
20
15
9.4 9.4
10
6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3
5
0
irit ys ets ort nt s ren fety
it y sp er displa ing/mark ansp proveme /child it y sa
mu n w p b lic tr im outh mun
Com s/flo Shop s/ Pu eral for y Com
Park Buse Gen lities
Faci
% response
Lazenby - Hate it
60 50
50
40
30 18.8
20 9.4 9.4 6.3 6.3
10
0
post office
roads/footpaths
behaviour
youth/children
anti social
community
public transport
traffic/calming,
activities for
safety
% response
30
3.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Se
a/
co
0
5
10
15
20
25
un
try
takeaways/charity sid
e
30.3
shops
He 22.7
general Pa
rk rit
ag
maintenance/cleanli s/ e
20.4
flo
ness/litter we
15.5
rd
is
pl
boarded up empty Sh ay
op s
18.1
houses/shops pi
14.8
ng
/m
ar
ke
shops/shopping ts
31
13.8
facilities
GUISBOROUGH (based on 304 responses)
14.1
% response
Pr
io
% responses
traffic/calming, Co ry
Guisborough - Love it
m
Guisborough - Hate it
m
10.9
7.6
roads/footpaths un
ity
sp
iri
Fo t
car parking
7.2
10.2
re
st
s/
wo
od
sports/leisure s
7.6
7.2
facilities
3.6
3.5
S
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
ea
/c
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
general ou
nt
maintenance/cleanli P ry
24.1
ar si
ness/litter ks de
/fl
ow 27.8
boarded up empty er
18.5
houses/shops di
sp
la
ys
shops/shopping Fo
24.1
re
14.8
facilities st
s/
w
oo
S ds
dog fouling
ho
11.1
SKELTON (based on 13 respondents)
pp
14.8
in
NEW MARSKE (based on 54 responses)
32
g/
m
ar
traffic/calming, ke
9.3
ts
% response
roads/footpaths C
om
% response
9.3
m
New Marske - Hate it
New Marske - Love it
un
sports/leisure ity
9.3
facilities
sp
iri
t
7.4
medical facilities M
7.4
us
eu
m
s
refuse
7.4
7.4
collection/recycling
Skelton - love it
25 23.1 23.1
20
15.4
15
10
5
0
Sea/countryside Community spirit Heritage
% reponse
Skelton - Hate it
46.2
50
45
40 30.8
35
30 23.1
25 15.4 15.4 15.4
20
15
10
5
0
development/planni
dog fouling
roads/footpaths
car parking
shops/shopping
traffic/calming,
economy/business
facilities
/jobs
ng
% response
33
3.7
10
12
14
16
18
0
2
4
6
8
10
15
20
25
0
5
activities for
15.8
youth/children
Sea/countryside
23.7
general
maintenance/clean
15.8
liness/litter
Sports/leisure
15.8
anti social
13.2
behaviour
BROTTON (based on 38 respondents)
shops/shopping Community
7.9
34
facilities
15.8
spirit
% response
% response
Brotton - Hate it
Brotton - Love it
development/planni
7.9
ng
Other facilities
7.9
dog fouling
7.9
general run down Facilities for
7.9
appearance/eyesor youth/children
es 7.9
3.8 LOFTUS (based on 59 respondents)
Loftus - Love it
35 30.5
30
25
18.6
20 15.3
15
10 6.8
5
0
Sports/leisure Sea/countryside Heritage Facilities for
youth/children
% responses
Loftus - Hate it
30 27.1
25 22 22
20 13.6 13.6
15 8.5 8.5
10
5
0
dog fouling
roads/footpaths
behaviour
alcohol/drug
youth/children
maintenance/clea
anti social
traffic/calming,
boarded up empty
activities for
houses/shops
misuse
nliness/litter
general
% response
35
3.9
10
15
20
25
0
5
0
5
10
15
20
Parks/flower
car parking
23.4
17.5
displays
general
maintenance/clea Sea/countryside
16.2
16.9
nliness/litter
shops/shopping Community
11
9.7
facilities spirit
MARSKE (based on 154 respondents)
36
activities for
% response
11
% response
Heritage
7.8
Marske - Hate it
youth/children
Marske - Love it
anti social
7.8
Other facilities
6.5
behaviour
boarded up empty Shopping/marke
7.8
5.2
houses/shops ts
3.10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
12
14
0
2
4
6
8
street and other
37.5
lighting
Sea/countryside 12.5
development/planning
25
traffic/calming, Parks/flower
12.5
12.5
roads/footpaths displays
wind turbines
12.5
General
MOORSHOLM (based on 8 respondents)
37
12.5
general improvements
maintenance/cleanlin
12.5
% response
% responses
ess/litter
Moorsholm - Love it
Moorsholm - Hate it
post office Facilities for
12.5
12.5
youth/children
refuse
12.5
collection/recycling
Education
12.5
economy/business/jo
12.5
bs
3.11 LINGDALE (based on 5 respondents)
Lingdale - Love it
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sports/leisure Wildlife General
improvements
% responses
Lingdale - Hate it
25
20 20 20
20
15
10
5
0
boarded up empty traffic/calming, public toilets
houses/shops roads/footpaths
% response
38
3.12 SKINNINGROVE (based on 28 respondents)
Skinningrove - Love it
40 35.7
35
30
25 21.4
20
15
10 7.1 7.1
5
0
Community Sea/countryside Heritage Museums
spirit
% response
Skinningrove - Hate it
25 21.4
20 17.9
14.3 14.3
15 10.7
10 7.1
5
0
roads/footpaths
street and other
appearance/eyesor
shops/shopping
maintenance/cleanl
traffic/calming,
boarded up empty
general run down
houses/shops
facilities
lighting
iness/litter
general
es
% response
39
3.13
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
general
maintenance/clea
19.2
Sea/countryside
nliness/litter 33.3
graffiti Parks/flower
13.1
30.3
displays
anti social Community
11.1
12.1
behaviour spirit
CARLIN HOW (based on 99 respondents
40
boarded up empty Facilities for
% responses
8.1
% responses
10.1
houses/shops youth/children
Carlin How - Hate it
Carlin How - Love it
activities for
Public art
6.1
6.1
youth/children
general run down
traditional
appearance/eyeso
6.1
5.1
seaside
res
3.14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
anti social behaviour
8.6
Community
spirit 10.2
boarded up empty
8.6
houses/shops
general run down
appearance/eyesore
7.5
Parks/flower
8.6
s displays
7
public transport
41
SOUTH BANK (based on 186 responses)
% response
% responses
traffic/calming, Shopping/marke
5.9
5.9
South Bank - Hate it
South Bank - Love it
roads/footpaths ts
general
maintenance/cleanli
5.9
ness/litter
Homes/housing
5.4
development/plannin
5.4
g
3.16
3.15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
10
12
14
16
0
2
4
6
8
public transport General
14.3
14.3
improvements
takeaways/charity
8.2
shops Parks/flower
12.2
displays
shops/shopping
6.1
facilities
Homes/housing
10.2
NORMANBY (based on 52 responses)
activities for
6.1
42
youth/children
GRANGETOWN (based on 49 responses)
% responses Sports/leisure
6.1
% response
general
Grangetown - Love it
maintenance/cleanli
6.1
Grangetown - Hate it
ness/litter
Cycleways
6.1
public toilets
6.1
refuse Community
6.1
6.1
collection/recycling safety
Normanby - Love It
12
9.6
10
7.7
8
5.8 5.8 5.8
6
4
2
0
kets p irit si de e nts a ds
g/m ar ity s ntry ve m fic/ro
ppi n mun /co u p ro Tra f
Sho Com Sea e ral i m
Gen
% response
Normanby - Hate it
12
9.6
10
7.7 7.7
8
5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
6
4
2
0
anti social behaviour
development/planning
roads/footpaths
medical facilities
car parking
youth/children
maintenance/cleanline
traffic/calming,
takeaways/charity
activities for
shops
ss/litter
general
% response
43
3.17 ORMESBY (based on 48 responses)
Ormesby - Love it
18 16.7
16 14.6
14
12
10 8.3
8 6.3
6 4.2 4.2
4
2
0
ts ys en rit e ty ng
rke pla i ldr spi saf us i
g /ma dis /ch nity ity s /ho
pin er th
mm
u un me
op ow you Co mm Ho
Sh rk s/fl s for Co
Pa li tie
F aci
% responses
Ormesby - Hate it
35 29.2
30 25
25
20
12.5 10.4
15 8.3 8.3 8.3
10
5
0
community safety
behaviour
sports/leisure
youth/children
shops/shopping
anti social
maintenance/cleanli
public transport
activities for
facilities
facilities
ness/litter
general
% response
44
3.18 ESTON (based on 53 responses)
Eston - Love It
14 13.2
11.3 11.3
12
10
8
5.7 5.7 5.7
6
4
2
0
t
side lays kets acilities spiri itage
n tr y disp ing/mar f nity Her
/cou er
flow Shopp Oth
er mu
Sea rks/ Com
Pa
% responses
Eston - Hate it
25 22.6
20
13.2
15 11.3
10 7.5
5.7 5.7 5.7
5
0
anti social behaviour
community safety
shops/shopping
appearance/eyesore
maintenance/cleanli
boarded up empty
takeaways/charity
general run down
houses/shops
facilities
ness/litter
shops
general
s
% response
45
3.19 WHALE HILL (based on 22 responses)
Whale Hill - Love it
35 31.8
30
25
20
15 9.1 9.1
10
5
0
e ts ays nce
ma
rk
d ispl t ena
pp ing/ wer ain
Sho ks /flo e ss/m
Par nlin
Clea
% response
Whale Hill - Hate it
16 13.6 13.6
14
12 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1
10
8
6
4
2
0
behaviour
community safety
shops/shopping
youth/children
anti social
boarded up empty
takeaways/charity
activities for
houses/shops
facilities
shops
% response
46
3.20 TEESVILLE (based on 17 responses)
Teesville - Love It
20 17.6 17.6
16
11.8 11.8 11.8
12
8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
4
0
s it s t
nt s por ysid
e re ife n ts
tie ing pir play su ldl dre ke
cili o us it y s i s me rans tr lei Wi hil /mar
lF
a
s/h mun rd ov
e t ou
n s/ th/
c
ica ome we impr ublic ea/ c ort ou ppin
g
ed om s/flo l Sp ry o
H C /P S o Sh
M rk era es sf
Pa Gen Bus litie
ci
Fa
% responses
Teesville - Hate it
23.5
25
20 17.6
15 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8
10
5
0
development/plan
car parking
shops/shopping
maintenance/clea
economy/busines
takeaways/charity
nliness/litter
facilities
general
s/jobs
shops
ning
% response
47
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS - PHOTOGRAPHS
48
1.0 Love it Photographs
1.1 SOUTH BANK
1.1.1 Twenty two photographs submitted showed the housing and architecture mix in the area,
with the pictures showing neatly maintained houses in clean streets. Some photographs
show housing where the back alleys have alley gate security fencing potentially adding
to the tidiness of the area.
1.1.2 The Youth and Community Centre and its colourful mural feature in three of the
photographs showing aspects of South Bank that are loved. Two more photographs in
the ‘loved’ folder show the South Bank Women’s Centre. Two other photographs show
other art work on green space in South Bank.
1.1.3 Six photographs identify that some of the derelict streets have been removed, green
space has been created in their place and rails provided to stop vehicle incursion on the
sites. Small parks and play areas also feature in six other ‘love it’ photographs, many
with neat railings and all litter free.
1.1.4 Two churches are shown as ‘loved’ in two of the photographs, St Peter’s Church and St.
John’s Church. St. George’s Square and the Cenotaph also are shown on the ‘loved’
photographs of South Bank.
1.1.5 Golden Boy Green was the subject of ten ‘love it’ photographs, showing the play area
and other facilities. New street lights and the shops on Normanby Road also featured as
facilities ‘loved’ in South Bank.
1.2 GRANGETOWN
1.2.1 Six photographs were submitted from residents of Grangetown showing that they ‘love’
the different services available in the area including the Fabian Road shops, the Library,
the Opportunities Centre, ‘FROG’ – Future Regeneration of Grangetown, the District
Housing Office, and the Church.
1.2.2 Small Parks including that on Church Lane and other open spaces are loved in
Grangetown.
1.3 NORMANBY
1.3.1 Twenty seven photographs were submitted by residents of Normanby, twenty of which
related to the appearance of the area and included photographs of trees, planted formal
and informal areas, shrubbery and well kept pathways for walking. Also in these
49
photographs are pictures of street furniture including planted half barrels, seating and
artfully produced name plates giving the name of ‘Normanby’.
1.3.2 A children’s play area also features in these ’love it’ photographs as does the Methodist
church.
1.3.3 The diverse housing of Normanby features in six of the photographs with the implication
that this is a pleasant place to live.
1.4 ESTON
1.4.1 The centre of Eston with its Square, the flower arrangements and planting and its street
furniture, including railings and bus stops were shown in three of the ‘love it’
photographs from Eston residents.
1.4.2 The open spaces small community led parks, including that of the ‘Duke of York’s
Community Initiative 2005’, were the subject of four ‘love it’ photographs. Clearly the
photograph showing the football goal posts also adds to the positive nature of the open
spaces. The views of the Eston Hills were also a ‘loved’ feature of living in Eston.
1.4.3 The provision of clearly marked and sufficiently sized disabled parking spaces were
noted and photographed by one participant as being a facet ‘loved’ in Eston. Other
facilities available and ‘loved’ were the Eston Grange Methodist Church, the Post Office
at Whale Hill, (and possibly also the local pharmacy); the children’s play area at Whale
Hill and the Community Centre at Whale Hill.
1.4.4 The village hall at Lazenby was also pictured amongst the ‘loved’ photographs as were
the green space and public areas of Lazenby with its Cenotaph and planting and seating
areas.
1.5 ORMESBY
1.5.1 Two photographs of Ormesby Hall with different views, one of the entrance and one into
the stables area with the clock tower, were included by participants from Ormesby
amongst the ‘loved’ aspects of their area.
1.5.2 Also of note are the new Coast and Country housing with its interesting design and neat
external appearance.
50
OTHER THAN ESTON AREAS
Wilton and Nunthorpe residents also produced photographs and comment on these is
included below.
1.6 WILTON
1.6.1 Photographs taken of Wilton Village include the welcome sign to the village and the
traditional stone housing with their well kept lawns and borders. The Wilton Castle
conversion to apartments and the land surrounding these as also included in the ‘love it’
photographs.
1.6.2 Open green spaces, neatly kept with traditional seating and well maintained planting
were included in the ‘love it’ photographs as were pictures of more ‘natural’ areas, and
the golf course.
1.6.3 St Cuthbert’s Church and the ground round the Church and the Churchyard were also
featured as areas participants ‘loved’.
1.7 NUNTHORPE
1.7.1 Open areas in Nunthorpe with views to the hills and Roseberry Topping were
photographed by residents as were pictures of local green areas with seating and half
barrels with flower displays. Rural appearances of roads with trees to the sides and play
areas were also included amongst aspects ‘loved’.
1.7.2 Road signage was ‘loved’ as was the Church. Amenities loved in the village of
Nunthorpe included the post office and the train stop.
51
2.0 Hate It Photographs
2.1 SOUTH BANK
2.1.1 A substantial proportion of the ‘hate it’ photographs submitted by residents of South
Bank related to derelict and boarded up properties including housing, shops, factories
and garages. Forty nine individual photographs have been categorised as showing these
types of properties.
2.1.2 Some derelict properties have broken windows and are covered in graffiti. Others are
also subject to graffiti but have boards or even metal shutters to deter misuse. Whilst
properties have been ‘protected’ with shutters this has not always deterred vandals with
some photographs showing that even with shutters some properties have been
vandalised. Interspersed with some of the derelict properties are properties that are
currently occupied suggesting that having a derelict property as a neighbour, (in some
cases on both sides of a terraced house), must make living quite unpleasant.
2.1.3 Not only do these properties detract from the area because of their dereliction and graffiti
but they are a constant reminder that the population is moving away in significant
numbers and the facilities such as shops that had once been available have now gone.
2.1.4 The ‘door to the future’ on Millennium Green is covered in graffiti, damaged and
therefore counter to its possible original purpose of bringing hope to the area.
2.1.5 Some property has been demolished it would seem and not6hing built in its place.
Fencing that has been put up to protect the sites has been vandalised adding to the
general air of dilapidation and abandonment shown in these ‘hate it’ photographs. Some
areas have been grassed but not protected from vehicles driving over them so that what
might be a pleasant grassed area has become a mire. Other areas have not been
grassed and have simply become overgrown and yet others show the end of houses
where those that had been next door have been demolished and nothing has been done
to improve the appearance of the end wall which simply shows the rooms and wallpaper
where neighbouring house once stood.
2.1.6 Shops and other local businesses were photographed showing that not only is the area
losing its facilities but potentially also a source of local employment.
2.1.7 Twenty eight photographs of areas covered in graffiti were included in those submitted
as ‘hate it’ photographs. In the main the graffiti consists of the scrawling of names or
initials rather than abusive graffiti but this nevertheless creates a poor physical
environment, potentially contributes to a fear of crime, and brings the area into disrepute.
52
2.1.8 St. George’s Square is included in eight photographs amongst the ‘hate it’ file. It can be
assumed from the photographs that the Square is in poor condition with damaged walls
round the planted area, with overgrown trees and shrubs, cracked pavements and poor
quality planting areas. (It is also believed that there are rats in the Square although this
is not shown on the photographs).
2.1.9 Golden Boy Green is included on four photographs of ‘hated’ parts of South Bank,
including the more modern seating area. Two photographs also show the bail hostel as
an aspect of South Bank that is ‘hated’.
2.1.10 Whilst alley gates may be useful they were also included amongst the ‘hated’
photographs potentially as they were broken in one instance and covered in graffiti in
another. Behind one set of gates appears to be a substantial amount of litter suggesting
that this areas is protected from people entering but not from wind blown or thrown litter.
2.1.11 The demolition of Cromwell Road School was hated providing yet another empty space
where noting is happening and providing another reminder of the loss of local facilities.
Similarly the site of the old Police Station is hated for the same reasons but also
because it is a magnet for rubbish being dumped. A photograph of the new police station
was included in the ‘hated’ photographs suggesting that some residents preferred the
old building or simply did not like the new.
2.1.12 Six photographs showing overgrown shrubbery, poorly maintained trees and lack of
planting were amongst the scenes depicting ‘hated’ parts of South Bank. Double parking
on Cromwell Road, cracked pavements and the new art work were also photographed.
The concrete works, with its concrete fencing with graffiti, its razor wire protection from
intruders and the less than aesthetically pleasing metal structures were photographed as
another eyesore.
2.1.13 Litter, dumped rubbish and fly tipping was also ‘hated’ with photographs of the site of the
old police station being specifically photographed in this respect. Bin bags in back alleys
broken open potentially by dogs or rats were also photographed and accumulated
rubbish near a site of the school was also included.
2.1.14 Holes in the pavements from the incomplete lighting improvements and the poor state of
‘Pearl’s Park’ were also included in the ‘hate it’ photographs from residents of South
Bank.
2.2 GRANGETOWN
2.2.1 Overgrown and poorly maintained shrubbery was also noted as ‘hated’ by residents of
Grangetown, with other photographs of a poor environment also being included here.
53
2.2.2 Derelict and abandoned properties some without roofs in close proximity to inhabited
properties were ‘hated’ in Grangetown as they were in South Bank.
2.2.3 Graffiti in Grangetown appears to consist largely of names and initials rather than abuse,
but nevertheless was still amongst the features of the area that are ‘hated’.
2.3 ESTON
2.3.1 A photograph of a parade of takeaway food shops was taken as part of what is ‘hated’
about Eston, presumably because of the amount of litter and mess associated with these
type of outlets. Also noted here was the slip road into and out of Lazenby which is
considered to be ‘dangerous’. This photograph also shows overgrown trees and foliage.
2.3.2 However the main ‘hated’ theme emerging from these photographs for Eston relates to
the condition of Eston Precinct with the number of boarded up properties, closed shops
and dirty aspect of the area. In addition advertising signs outside of some shops must
prove a hazard for those with visual impairment. The appearance of the precinct is
unwelcoming with its poorly maintained paving, the graffiti on the concrete walkways and
the overflowing drain.
2.4 NORMANBY
2.4.1 In Normanby the state of the pavements and the presence of dog fouling uncleared by
owners and the grass verges ruined by people parking on them were amongst those
submitted as showing ‘hated’ aspects of the area.
2.4.2 A photograph of the overpass was also submitted and it is assumed that this has been
included because it ‘feels unsafe’. The concrete material from which the structure is built
is also not environmentally pleasing.
2.4.3 There are photographs included from Tittybottle Park with piles of leaves uncleared
possibly making it difficult to walk on and probably reducing the pleasant appearance of
the area.
2.4.4 The shop fronts in Normanby were ‘hated’ possibly because they are untidy with the
frontage of the shops damaged and unpainted.
2.5 ORMESBY
2.5.1 Two photographs amongst those submitted from residents of Ormesby as ‘hated’
aspects of their neighbourhood include the fencing around the playing fields reducing or
stopping public access for use by the residents.
54
2.5.2 However, the aspect which generated the most photographs from Ormesby was again
damage and graffiti, with a couple of places which appear from the photographs to be
somewhat isolated being included amongst these.
2.5.3 The telephone mast and the leftover concrete from when the bridge was removed, stuck
as it is at the edge of what appears to be a pleasant green area, were also mentioned as
‘hated’.
2.5.4 The Allendale Centre with graffiti on the outside and a poor shopping offering and poor
physical condition was also included amongst the ‘hated’ photographs in Ormesby.
2.6 WILTON
2.6.1 Only one photograph was submitted showing ‘hated; aspects of Wilton and this shows
damage caused by vehicles on the grassed area.
2.7 NUNTHORPE
2.7.1 Graffiti, careless thrown and accumulated litter and vandalised facilities such as bus
stops and properties were included in the aspects ‘hated’ about Nunthorpe.
2.7.2 Also included as ‘hated’ was some of the new build three storey property pictured with
cars parked outside; the telephone mast which stands out from the local trees and
foliage; and advertising on the roundabouts which detract from the environmental and art
work of the Council.
2.7.3 Poorly maintained and overgrown walkways and footpaths were also photographed to
be included in the ‘hated’ aspects of Nunthorpe.
55
Related docs
Other docs by HC120727014959
Now it was a major factor in the group s income with Pat and Billy Joe being
Views: 0 | Downloads: 0
