north yorkshire county council citizens' panel

7/29/2019 North Yorkshire County Council Citizens' Panel

1/20

North Yorkshire County Council

Citizens' Panel 25

Survey Report

Analysis and report by

NWA Social Research

1


2/20

Contents

Page

No.

....................................................................................................1 KEY FINDINGS 3..................................2 BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY 5

SURVEY FINDINGS

.....................................................................................................3 COUNCIL TAX 7................................................................................................................4 SAVINGS 8

....................................................................5 SPECIFIC AREAS FOR SAVINGS 10..........................................................................................6 OTHER COMMENTS 17

Appendix 1 .............................................................................. Copy

of questionnaire marked-up with top-line findings

Appendix 2 .............................................................................. Tables

of frequencies

Appendix 3 Tables of results

Appendix 4

Responses to open questions

2


3/20

1. KEY FINDINGS COUNCIL TAX

1.1 The majority of respondents (71%) believed the County Council should

implement the first option and 'take up the Government's ofer, therebyfreezing council tax in April 2013' while a quarter (25%) of all respondents

believed the County Council should 'reject the council tax freeze and set a

council tax rise of 2%, thereby avoiding the need for a referendum'. Just 5%

of respondents believed that the Council should 'propose a council tax

increase in excess of 2% and put this to a referendum of North Yorkshire

voters'.

SAVINGS

1.2 When asked about a range of general measures that could be made to

generate savings, respondents were most likely to agree that the Councilshould implement an 'increased use of volunteers' (77%), followed by

three-quarters of respondents believing that the Council should

implement an 'increased use of the internet' (75%). 60% stated that would

approve of 'fewer access points/buildings' while less than half of all

respondents agreed with a potential reduction in the frequency of services

provided by the Council (45%). 38% felt that there was potential to

'increase charging for services' and agreement was lowest, and

disagreement highest (16% 'agree'/45% 'disagree'), in relation to the

prospect of stopping some services.

SPECIFIC AREAS FOR SAVINGS1.3 Respondents were then asked about the extent to which they would agree

if the County Council were to reduce spending in a range of listed areas of

various levels of spending. When these responses are converted in to net

scores ('agree' responses minus 'disagree' responses) i.e. the higher the

score the greater the level of overall agreement, the order of agreement

was as follows:

Trading standards and planning (+56%)

Public transport subsidies and concessionary fares (+42%)

Economic development (+33%)

Home to school transport (+30%)

Libraries (+17%)

Waste management (+6%)

Youth services (+4%)

Early interventions for families (including children's centres)

(-13%)

Roads and footways (-14%)

Support for adults and older people (-16%)

3


4/20

Children's social care (-44%)

Support for children and families with special educational needs

and/or disabilities (-44%)

Winter roads maintenance (gritting) (-61%)

1.4 Respondents were then asked if they would like to suggest other areas in

which the County Council should make savings and 38% of the overall

sample ofered suggestions at this point. When responses are coded, of

the 471 respondents who made comments, 48% did so in relation to

'administration/stang/ Councillors/expenses' while less than one-in-ten

did so in relation to 'street lighting' (8%), 'transport/bus passes' (7%) and a

reduction in services (7%). One-in-twenty or less mentioned 'eciency

savings' (5%), 'charging for services/parking' (4%), 'benefits/housing

benefits' (3%), 'Council buildings' (3%) and 'unnecessary projects' (3%).

One-in-fifty respondents mentioned 'greater use of internet' (2%) and'parks and open spaces/floral displays' (2%). 7% gave 'other'

responses. OTHER COMMENTS1.5 At Question 5 respondents were asked if they had any other comments

they would like to make, at which point 389 respondents (29% of the

overall sample) made comments which are listed verbatim at Appendix 4.

4


5/20

2. BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY2.1 BACKGROUND AND SURVEY OBJECTIVES2.1.1North Yorkshire County Council Citizens Panel was set up to assist the

Council in planning of its services to meet the needs and priorities of itsresidents. The Panel was first recruited in early 2004 and refreshed each

year since then with the last refreshment having taken place in June 2010

(some Panel members retired and new members were recruited). The Panel

currently consists of 2,005 members.

2.1.2In December 2012 (3rd), all Panel members were sent a copy of the Winter

survey questionnaire, either by post, or via email alert informing them that

the questionnaire was available online.

.3 The overall themes of the survey related to:

Council Tax Specific Areas for Savings

2.1.4A copy of the questionnaire, marked up with weighted top-line results, is

attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

2.2 METHODOLOGY/ACHIEVED SAMPLE2.2.1Questionnaires, together with a postage paid return envelope, were posted

out to Panel members and emails were sent to those Panel members who

had given their email addresses, including those who had requested to be

contacted only by email.

2.2.2A total of 1,212 completed questionnaires were returned prior to analysis

(including 482 via the internet [40% of total returns]). This gives a

response rate of 60%.

2.3 ANALYSIS2.3.1The data was analysed using the statistical package SPSS 15.0 (Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences).

2.3.2As the Panel was recruited so as to give roughly similar numbers of

respondents in all areas of the County to facilitate comparisons between

areas, the achieved sample was not representative of the County in termsof geography. The achieved sample was also not representative of the

County in terms of age, there being an under-representation of younger

people (particularly males), and over-representation of older males.

Weightings were therefore applied so as to make the achieved sample

more representative of the County.

2.3.31) Weights were calculated to ensure that the County was representative of

its population in terms of age x gender.

2) Weights were calculated on a geographic (District) basis, to ensure that

the numbers of respondents from each of the seven Districts were

proportionate to the adult populations therein.

5


6/20

2.3.4Tables were produced from the weighted data, showing weighted

percentages and unweighted counts for the sample overall, and for the

following sub-groups: gender; age group; whether or not have long-

term illness or disability; ethnicity; employment status; tenure;

whether or not have children under 18 years in the household; access tocar/ van; and District. These Tables of Results are attached as Appendix

3.

2.3.5As is usual with all self-completion questionnaires, some individuals did

not complete all questions. This may be because they did not have an

opinion on the question asked, but we cannot make this assumption in full

confidence. Such missing data is excluded from the Tables of Results and

marked-up questionnaire but included in the Tables of Frequencies.

Unweighted frequency counts, showing details of missing responses, are

attached as Appendix 2. Responses to open-ended questions (verbatim)

are attached as Appendix 4.

2.3.6At the Councils request, reported Panel survey results are in whole

percentages and the tables produced show results where the figures have

been rounded to the nearest whole. Because of this rounding process,

however, there may be some instances when two response categories are

added (e.g. very satisfied + fairly satisfied), where the total may be 1%

greater or smaller than the two individual responses, e.g. very

satisfied (3.4% - 3%) plus fairly satisfied (10.4% - 10%) gives total

satisfied (13.8% - 14% : not 13%).

2.3.7 The table below shows the Confidence Intervals at the 95% ConfidenceLevel relating to a selection of randomly selected sample sizes, i.e. with a

randomly selected sample of 100, if 50% of respondents gave a yes

response, this means there is a 95% probability that between 40.2% and

59.8% (50% + 9.8%) of the population from which the sample were selected

would be of the yes opinion. This table can be used as a guide to give an

indication of the Confidence Interval at the 95% Confidence Level relating

to the overall sample and/or sample sub-groups.

Sample Size

100 200 300 500 750 1,000 1,229+ % + % + % + % + % + % + %

50% 9.8 6.9 5.7 4.4 3.6 3.1 2.8

Res onse 40% or 60% 9.7 6.8 5.6 4.3 3.5 3.0 2.730% or 70% 9.0 6.4 5.2 4.0 3.3 2.8 2.620% or 80% 7.9 5.6 4.5 3.5 2.9 2.5 2.210% or 90% 5.9 4.2 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.7

6


7/20

3. COUNCIL TAX Question 1: 'Do you believe the County Council should...?'

'a) Take up the Government's ofer, thereby freezing council

tax in April 2013' 'b) Reject the council tax freeze and the ofer and instead set

a council tax rise of 2%, thereby avoiding the need for a

referendum'

'c) Propose a council tax increase in excess of 2% and put this

to a referendum of North Yorkshire voters'

Appendix 3 - Page 1

3.1 The majority of respondents (71%) believed the County Council should

implement the first option and 'take up the Government's ofer, thereby

freezing council tax in April 2013', falling to 59% of respondents in Selby

and 65% of unemployed respondents while rising to 76% of respondents

with no access to a car or van and 77% of respondents in Harrogate.

Likelihood of selecting the first option remained at around 70% for all sub-

groups.

Q1: Do you believe the County Council should...?

(Overall - % - 1194 respondents)

3.2 A quarter (25%) of all respondents believed the County Council should

'reject the council tax freeze and set a council tax rise of 2%, thereby

avoiding the need for a referendum', rising to 37% of respondents in Selby

while falling to 21% of respondents who indicated that they have a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity and 19% of respondents in

7


8/20

Harrogate. Just 5% of respondents believed that the Council should

'propose a council tax increase in excess of 2% and put this to a

referendum of North Yorkshire voters', falling to 1% of respondents in

Ryedale.

4. SAVINGS Question 2:'To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following

general approaches should be made to generate savings?'

Appendix 3 - Pages 2 to 8

4.1 When asked about a range of general measures that could be made to

generate savings, respondents were most likely to agree that the Council

should implement an 'increased use of volunteers' (77%: 28% 'strongly

agree' + 49% 'agree') rising with age to 81% of respondents between theages of 60 and 74 (30% 'strongly agree' + 51% 'agree') and 88% of those

over the age of 75 (35% 'strongly agree' + 53% 'agree'). Males (25%

'strongly agree' + 48% 'tend to agree') were less likely than females (30%

'strongly agree' + 50% 'agree') to agree that the Council should implement

an 'increased use of volunteers' (73% cf. 80%).

Q2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following general

approaches should be made to generate savings?

(Overall - % - 1135-1196 respondents)

4.2

Three-quarters of respondents (75%) agreed that the Council shouldimplement an 'increased use of the internet' (32% 'strongly agree' + 43%

8


9/20

'agree'), with likelihood of supporting this proposal consistently declining

with age from 85% of respondents aged 18 to 34 (43% 'strongly agree' +

42% 'agree') reducing to 62% of respondents over the age of 75 (10%

'strongly agree' + 52% 'agree'). 60% of respondents stated that they would

approve of 'fewer access points/buildings' (15% 'strongly agree' + 45%

'agree'), with respondents living households with children under the age of

18 present (13% 'strongly agree' + 40% 'agree') being less likely than those

who do not live in such households (15% 'strongly agree' + 47% 'agree') to

agree with this proposal (53% cf. 62%).

4.3 Less than half of all respondents agreed with a potential reduction in the

frequency of services provided by the Council (45%: 7% 'strongly agree' +

38% 'agree'), with agreement by age being lowest amongst respondents

aged 18 to 34 (32%: 8% 'strongly agree' + 24% 'agree') and highestamongst those aged 60 to 74 (53%: 8% 'strongly agree' + 45% 'agree').

Respondents without children under the age of 18 in their household (7%

'strongly agree' + 39% 'agree') were more likely than those with children

under the age of 18 (8% 'strongly agree' + 31% 'agree') to agree to a

reduction in Council services (46% cf. 39%).

4.4 38% of all respondents felt that there was potential to 'increase charging

for services' (4% 'strongly agree' + 34% 'agree'), falling to 26% of

respondents with no access to a car or van (2% 'strongly agree' + 24%'agree') while agreement remained broadly similar across all sub-groups.

Respondents living in households without children under the age of 18 (4%

'strongly agree' + 35% 'agree') were more likely to express agreement than

those with children under the age of 18 (2% 'strongly agree' + 29% 'agree'

- 39% cf. 31%).

4.5 Agreement in this section was lowest, and disagreement highest (45%: 34%

'disagree' + 11% 'strongly disagree'), in relation to the prospect of

stopping some services (16%: 6% 'strongly agree' + 10% 'agree') while

'neither agree nor disagree' responses were highest of any aspect listed at

Question 2 (40% 'neither'). Likelihood of agreeing with the possibility of

stopping some services consistently rose with age from 9% of respondents

aged 18 to 34 (3% 'strongly agree' + 6% 'agree') rising to 22% of

respondents over the age of 75 (7% 'strongly agree' + 15% 'agree').

9


10/20

5. SPECIFIC AREAS FOR SAVINGS Question 3:'To what extent would you agree if we were to reduce

spending in the areas listed below?'

Question 4:'Are there other areas in which you think we should makesavings?'

Appendix 3 - Pages 9 to 24

5.1 When ask the extent to which respondents agree with the possibility of

reducing spending in relation to areas of expenditure on which the Council

currently rates spending as being high (more than 20,000,000 a year),

respondents were most likely support reductions in 'public transport

subsidies and concessionary fares' (65%: 20% 'strongly agree' + 45%

'reluctantly agree') - falling to 55% of retired respondents (17% 'strongly

agree' + 38% 'reluctantly agree') in comparison to 70% of both respondents

who are unemployed (22% 'strongly agree' + 48% 'reluctantly agree') or in

employment (22% 'strongly agree' + 48% 'reluctantly agree'). The overall

net score - 'agree' minus 'disagree' responses - for 'public transport and

concessionary fares' was +41%, the second highest of any aspect of

Council spending listed at Question 3.

Q3: To what extent would you agree if we were to reduce spending in the areas

listed below?

(Areas of high spending - % - 1167-1196 respondents)

5.2 56% of respondents agreed with the possibility of a reduction in the

provision of 'home to school transport' (18% 'strongly agree' + 38%10


11/20

'reluctantly agree'), with this aspect of Council spending also seeing a

positive net score (+30%). Agreement in this area was highest amongst

younger age groups (61%: 18 - 34/59%: 35 - 59) when compared to

respondents aged 60 to 74 (50%) and over (51%).

11


12/20


listed below?

(Areas of medium spending - % - 1188-1195 respondents)


listed below?(Areas of low spending - % - 1188/1196 respondents)

12


13/20

13


14/20

5.3 Respondents with children under the age of 18 present in their household

(15% 'strongly agree' + 33% 'reluctantly agree') were less likely than those

without (19% 'strongly agree' + 40% 'reluctantly agree') to support a

reduction in the provision of 'home to school transport' (48% cf. 59%). This

was also the case when comparing respondents with no access to a car or

van (14% 'strongly agree' + 28% 'reluctantly agree') with respondents with

access to one (16% 'strongly agree' + 40% 'reluctantly agree') or more (20%

'strongly agree' + 39% 'reluctantly agree') cars or vans (42% cf. 56%/59%).

5.4 43% of respondents expressed agreement with the possibility of a

reduction in 'waste management' spending (8% 'strongly agree' + 35%

'reluctantly agree'), with this aspect recording a positive net score of +6%.

Likelihood of supporting a reduction in 'waste management' spending

consistently rose with age from a third (33%) of respondents aged 18 to 34(7% 'strongly agree' + 26% 'reluctantly agree') rising to 53% of respondents

over the age of 75 (7% 'strongly agree' + 46% 'reluctantly agree').

5.5 38% of respondents stated that they would support a reduction in

spending on 'roads and footways' (5% 'strongly agree' + 33% 'reluctantly

agree'), although this proposal saw a negative net score of -14%.

Likelihood of supporting a reduction in 'roads and footways' spending

decreased with age from 47% of respondents aged 18 to 34 (2% 'strongly

agree' + 45% 'reluctantly agree'), falling to 35% of respondents aged 60 to74 (6% 'strongly agree' + 29% 'reluctantly agree') and 29% of respondents

over the age of 75 (9% 'strongly agree' + 20% 'reluctantly agree'). Males (5%

'strongly agree' + 36% 'reluctantly agree') were more likely than females

(5% 'strongly agree' + 30% 'reluctantly agree') to support a reduction in

'roads and footways' spending (41% cf. 35%), as were respondents with no

access to a car or van (7% 'strongly agree' + 36% 'reluctantly agree') when

compared to those with one (7% 'strongly agree' + 30% 'reluctantly agree')

or more (3% 'strongly agree' + 35% 'reluctantly agree') cars or vans (43% cf.

37%/38%).

5.6 In terms of spending on 'support for adults and older people', 36% of

respondents expressed agreement in relation to a possible reduction (5%

'strongly agree' + 31% 'reluctantly agree') while recording a negative net

score of -16%. While agreement in this area remained at 34% to 35% for

respondents between the ages of 18 to 74, agreement rose to 51% of

respondents over the age of 75 (12% 'strongly agree' + 39% 'reluctantly

agree'). Respondents with a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity

(6% 'strongly agree' + 34% 'reluctantly agree') were more likely than those

14


15/20

without (5% 'strongly agree' + 30% 'reluctantly agree') to agree with

reduction in this area of spending (40% cf. 35%).

5.7 Just 19% of respondents stated that they would agree to a reduction in

spending on 'children's social care' (4% 'strongly agree' + 15% 'reluctantly

agree') while 63% disagreed (42% 'disagree' + 21% 'strongly disagree')

creating a net score of -44%. Support for a reduction in this area increased

with age from 11% of respondents aged 18 to 34 (3% 'strongly agree' + 8%

'reluctantly agree') rising to 28% of respondents aged 75 and over (8%

'strongly agree' + 20% 'reluctantly agree'). Respondents living in

households with children under the age of 18 present (4% 'strongly agree'

+ 8% 'reluctantly agree') were less likely than those from households

without (4% 'strongly agree' + 17% 'reluctantly agree') to express

agreement with a spending reduction in this area (12% cf. 21%).

Number ofrespondents

Strongly/reluctantly

agree

Neitheragree nordisagree

Disagree/stronglydisagree

Net

f) Trading standardsand planning (L) 1188 66 24 10 56d) Public transport subsidies and concessionaryfares (H)

1196 65 12 23 42

g) Economic development (L) 1167 51 31 18 33h) Home to school transport (H) 1192 56 18 26 30

m) Libraries (M) 1195 49 18 32 17

e) Wastemanagement (H) 1183 43 19 37 6

) Youth services (M) 1188 41 23 37 4k) Early interventionsfor families(including children'scentres) (M)

1191 31 25 44 -13

b) Roads andfootways (H) 1181 38 10 52 -14

15


16/20

a) Support for adultsand older people (H) 1178 36 12 52 -16i) Children's socialcare (H)

1186 20 17 63 -44

l) Support forchildren andfamilies with special educational needs and/or disabilities (M)

1193 19 16 64 -44

c) Winter roads maintenance(gritting) (M) 1195 16 7 77 -61

5.8 In terms of spending on areas of medium levels of spending (currentlybetween 5,000,000 and 20,000,000 per year), 49% of respondents

expressed agreement in relation to a possible reduction in spending on

'libraries' (11% 'strongly agree' + 38% 'reluctantly agree') creating a positive

net score of +17%. Support for reduction in spending on 'libraries' was

higher amongst older respondents, falling to 42% of those aged 18 to 34

(11% 'strongly agree' + 31% 'reluctantly agree'). Respondents with children

under the age of 18 present in their household (8% 'strongly agree' + 35%'reluctantly agree') were less likely than those without children under 18

(12% 'strongly agree' + 39% 'reluctantly agree') to express agreement with

a reduction in spending in this area (43% cf. 51%).

5.9 41% of respondents would either 'strongly' (8%) or 'reluctantly agree' (33%)

with a reduction in spending on 'youth services', contributing to a small

positive net score of +4%. Respondents without children under the age of

18 present in their household (8% 'strongly agree' + 35% 'reluctantly

agree') were significantly more likely than those with children under the

age of 18 (6% 'strongly agree' + 23% 'reluctantly agree') to express

agreement with a possible reduction in spending on 'youth services' (43%

cf. 29%). Likelihood of supporting such a reduction also consistently

increased with age from 27% of respondents aged 18 to 34 (5% 'strongly

agree' + 22% 'reluctantly agree') rising to 54% of respondents over the age

of 75 (8% 'strongly agree' + 46% 'reluctantly agree'). Unemployed

respondents (9% 'strongly agree' + 22% 'reluctantly agree') were less likely

than both employed (7% 'strongly agree' + 31% 'reluctantly agree') and

retired respondents (8% 'strongly agree' + 39% 'reluctantly agree') toagreement with such a reduction in spending (31% cf. 38%/47%).

16


17/20

5.10 Agreement in relation to a reduction in spending on 'early interventions for

families (including children's centres)' stood at 31% (7% 'strongly agree' +

24% 'reluctantly agree'), creating a negative net score of -13% agreement.

Agreement was again lowest amongst respondents aged 18 to 34 (23%: 8%

'strongly agree' + 15% 'reluctantly agree') and highest amongst

respondents over the age of 75 (37%: 7% 'strongly agree' + 30% 'reluctantly

agree'). There was again a greater level of agreement amongst

respondents without children under the age of 18 (7% 'strongly agree' +

26% 'reluctantly agree') when compared to those with children under 18

(8% 'strongly agree' + 15% 'reluctantly agree') for a potential reduction in

spending (33% cf. 23%).

5.11Just one-in-five respondents (20%) expressed agreement with a possible

reduction in 'support for children and families with special educationalneeds and/or disabilities' (5% 'strongly agree' + 15% 'reluctantly agree')

while 64% expressed disagreement (43% 'disagree' + 21% 'strongly

disagree') creating a negative net score of -44% (the second lowest score

of all aspects listed at Question 3). Agreement remained around this level

for the majority of sub-groups, rising to 35% of unemployed respondents

(8% 'strongly agree' + 27% 'reluctantly agree'), 26% of respondents over the

age of 75 (13% 'strongly agree' + 13% 'reluctantly agree') and 26% of those

without access to a car or van (12% 'strongly agree' + 14% 'reluctantly

agree').

5.12Just 16% of respondents stated that they would agree to a reduction in

spending on 'winter roads maintenance' (4% 'strongly agree' + 12%

'reluctantly agree') while over three-quarters expressed opposition to any

such reduction (77%: 45% 'disagree' + 32% 'strongly disagree') creating a

negative net score of -61% (the lowest score of all aspects of Council

spending listed at Question 3). Levels of agreement remained low for the

majority of sub-groups with agreement being highest amongst

unemployed respondents (22%: 9% 'strongly agree' + 13% 'reluctantlyagree'), those without access to a car or van (23%: 10% 'strongly agree' +

13% 'reluctantly agree') and those living in Hambleton (21%: 1% 'strongly

agree' + 20% 'reluctantly agree').

5.13 When asked about spending reductions in areas of currently low Council

spending (up to 5,000,000 per year), two-thirds of respondents (66%)

expressed agreement with a potential reduction in spending on 'trading

standards and planning' (23% 'strongly agree' + 43% 'reluctantly agree')

while just 10% expressed disagreement (8% 'disagree' + 2% 'stronglydisagree' [lowest level of disagreement for all areas listed at Question 3])

17


18/20

creating a positive net score of +56% (the highest net score attained at

Question 3). Agreement remained at 60% or more for all respondent sub-

groups and was lowest amongst respondents with a long-standing illness,

disability or infirmity (59%: 18% 'strongly agree' + 41% 'reluctantly agree').

Males (20% 'strongly agree' + 42% 'reluctantly agree') were less likely than

females (27% 'strongly agree' + 43% 'reluctantly agree') to express

agreement with a potential reduction in spending on 'trading standards

and planning' (62% cf. 70%).

5.14 51% of respondents expressed agreement with a reduction in spending on

'economic development' (18% 'strongly agree' + 33% 'reluctantly agree')

while 18% disagreed (13% 'disagree' + 5% 'strongly disagree') giving a

positive net score of +33% (the third highest of budgetary areas listed at

Question 3). 'Economic development' also saw the highest percentage of'neither agree nor disagree' responses of all aspects listed at Question 3 -

31%. Agreement by age group was lowest amongst respondents aged 18

to 34 (42%: 17% 'strongly agree' + 25% 'reluctantly agree') while being

highest amongst respondents between the ages of 35 and 74. Males (16%

'strongly agree' + 31% 'reluctantly agree') were less likely than females

(20% 'strongly agree' + 36% 'reluctantly agree') to express agreement with

a potential reduction in spending in areas of 'economic development' (47%

cf. 56%).

5.15 Respondents were then asked if they would like to suggest other areas in

which the County Council should make savings and 38% of the overall

sample ofered suggestions at this point which are listed verbatim at

Appendix 4. When responses are coded, of the 471 respondents who made

comments, 48% did so in relation to 'administration/stang/ Councillors/

expenses' while less than one-in-ten did so in relation to 'street

lighting' (8%), 'transport/bus passes' (7%) and a reduction in services (7%).

One-in-twenty or less mentioned 'eciency savings' (5%), 'charging for

services/parking' (4%), 'benefits/housing benefits' (3%), 'Councilbuildings' (3%) and 'unnecessary projects' (3%). One-in-fifty respondents

mentioned 'greater use of internet' (2%) and 'parks and open spaces/floral

displays' (2%). 7% gave 'other' responses.

Q4: Are there any other areas in which you think we should make savings?


18


19/20

19


20/20

6. OTHER COMMENTS Question 5:'Are there any other comments you would like to make?'

Appendix 3 - Page 25

6.1 At Question 5 respondents were asked if they had any other comments

they would like to make, at which point 389 respondents (29% of the

overall sample) made comments which are listed verbatim at Appendix 4.

Q5: Are there any other comments you would like to make?


20

north yorkshire county council citizens' panel

Documents