newhaven information event survey report

7/30/2019 Newhaven Information Event Survey Report

1/38

NEWHAVEN WATER PARK DEVELOPMENT

Survey results from public information event

Held on 30/10/12 & 31/10/12

Report by

The Democratic Society

For Round Table Entertainments Ltd

Authors: Anthony Zacharzewski & Katie Nurcombe

13 November 2012


2/38

2

Publication information:

13 November 2012

Catalogue reference DRRS1R

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England &Wales License. You are free to copy, share and remix the work, and to makecommercial use of it, as long as you attribute the original research to theDemocratic Society and do not misrepresent the survey results.

Set in Avenir Next.


3/38

3

Summary of Results

1. This report contains the results of the public survey exercise undertaken at theHillcrest Centre during the information exhibition put on by Round TableEntertainments.

How we took public opinion

2. 975 adults attended the exhibition, along with a number of children. We tookpublic opinion through two soft and two hard measures.

3. We collated a word tree on which participants were invited to put a hope anda fear in relation to the development, and we provided a postcard drop forcontact details and additional comments. These are described later in thedocument.

4. We provided a token drop, where participants used a red raffle ticket toindicate that the event had not been useful, and a green raffle ticket to indicatethat the event had been useful. We also invited participants to complete aeight-question questionnaire.

5. 650 completed questionnaires were handed in, a sample rate of 67%. 624raffle tickets were dropped, a sample rate of 64%. For a drop-in event of thistype, the sample rate was high, giving us confidence that our information is agood reflection of the opinion of those who attended.

Questions and results

6. 85% of participants using the token drop said that they found the event useful,

15% said it was not useful.

7. Question 1 (Postcode or town). The large majority of questionnairerespondents came from Newhaven (73%). 27% came from other areas, almostall from the towns and villages immediately around.

8. Question 2 (Most important benefit). We listed four potential benefits of thedevelopment (with a write-in other option), and forced a choice of one.

Several participants pointed out that all the potential benefits were important,which is of course true. When asked to choose only one, economic factors


4/38

4

came out as most important, with 37% saying that wide economic benefits, and38% that jobs for local people were the most important benefits to focus on.8% said eco-friendliness was the most important, and 6% a cheap residentspass. 8% selected the other option and 2% did not answer.

9. Question 3 (Most important negative). We listed five potential negativeconsequences of the development (with a write-in other option), and forced achoice of one. As with the previous question, some participants complainedthat all the negatives were important. When asked to choose only one, morethan three quarters of participants (77%) said that traffic was the thing thedeveloper should do the most to avoid. An unattractive building was a distantsecond in the survey, at 6%, followed by Other (5%), loss of green space (5%),pollution (3%), Noise (3%). 6% did not know or did not answer.

10. Question 4 (Maximise local hiring). We listed four ways in which the developermight support local people into employment, with an other option, andasked which would be most effective, with multiple choices permitted. Trainingwas the most selected option, with 77% of respondents 1 selecting this option.58% thought that the developer would be well-advised to advertise the jobslocally, and 55% make links with local schools and colleges. Only 1% said thatthey didnt think the developer needed to make a particular effort, and 5%gave other answers.

11. Question 5 (Design elements). We listed four aspects of the town that thedesigner might want to take into account in the development, and asked whichpeople would like to see, with multiple choices and an other optionpermitted. The maritime history of the town was the most selected, by 61% of

those who responded to the questionnaire. Next most popular was the townsdownland setting (54%) and its port and industry (44%). 14% wanted thedesigner to reflect that Newhaven is an innovative town. 4% wanted thedesigner to reflect something else, the details of which are in the main report.

12. Questions 6 and 7 were designed to understand the general appetite forregeneration and traffic improvement in the town, and whether participantsthought that the water park could start regeneration in the town. It is important

1 Of all those who responded to the questionnaire


5/38

5

to note that this question did not ask whether people were in favour of thewater park development or not, which is a question for the main consultation,once more information is available.

13. Support was almost universal for regeneration of some sort 96% of thoseresponding that they definitely or generally supported regeneration andimprovements to traffic flow, and only 0.3% (two respondents) saying that theydid not.

14. Opinion was more mixed, but still positive, on whether the water park proposalcould start that regeneration. 48% thought that it definitely could, 32% that itprobably could, making a total of 80% who were of a positive opinion on thisquestion. 8% thought that the proposals probably could not start regeneration,and 3% thought that they definitely could not. 9% said that they did not know.

15. Question 8 (further involvement) presented four options for furthercommunication, multiple choices permitted, along with an other option, andrespondents could also tick a box saying they did not want to be furtherinvolved. Public meetings were the most frequently requested, with 56% of those responding to the questionnaire saying that they would be interested inparticipating in them. 49% said that they would want to receive information byemail (many also left their email addresses), and 36% mentioned a papernewsletter. The least popular option was online discussion, which wasmentioned by only 15% of questionnaire respondents. There was clearly anappetite for further involvement, as only 4% of respondents wanted no furtherinvolvement. 4% also suggested alternative methods of engagement, set out inthe main report.

16. Postcards and word trees generated some softer results around sentiment,these are covered in the main report with all comments, whether frompostcards, word trees or written on questionnaires as additional commentsincluded at Annex C.


6/38

6

Introduction

17. This report contains the results of a public opinion exercise undertaken outsidethe public exhibition on the proposed Newhaven water park.

18. The Democratic Society has been asked to facilitate a high-quality,representative public conversation on the proposed water park developmentin Newhaven, including as many residents of the town as possible and ensuringthat those who will eventually have decisions to make on the project can do sowith the best possible understanding of public views.

19. The formal public consultation will take place from January to July 2013, butwe are already undertaking planning and networking activities to support theconsultation process when it starts. More information on the DemocraticSociety and its standards of independence and openness can be found inAnnex A to this report.

Financial declaration

20. The costs of undertaking the research described in this report were met by thedeveloper (Round Table Entertainments) and our wider network developmentwork in Newhaven is funded in part by a project undertaken for Lewes DistrictCouncil. Both funders are committed to the independence and openness of our work, in accordance with our standard conditions of work at Annex A. Aswith all our work, we have retained full design and editorial control in theprocess and in the production of this report, which is a true reflection of thepublic views expressed to us.

Context

21. On the 30th and 31st of October Round Table Entertainments held a two-dayinformation event at The Hillcrest Centre in Newhaven. The purpose of theevent, as expressed by the organisers, was to introduce residents and localstakeholders to the water park concept prior to public consultation when

detailed proposals would be available.


7/38

7

22. The Democratic Society used this event to assess public views on generalissues related to the development, including possible positives and negatives,to increase awareness of the consultation, to gauge public views on the qualityof the event, and to understand how people in the town would want to beinvolved in the continuing conversations.

23. This report sets out the results from this public consultation, which are drawnfrom objective data except where our opinion is stated and marked.

Physical environment

24. The exercise was undertaken at the Hillcrest Centre in Newhaven, which is aformer primary school. The main hall was used by the developer for a range of information stands, and staff from the developer and associated companieswere located in the hall.

25. Our team were marked out with distinctive t-shirts and based primarily in theentrance hall, where we greeted arrivals and explained our role. Some of ourteam moved around inside the exhibition hall helping people complete the

questionnaires that we prepared (an example of which can be found at AnnexB).

26. Our team were briefed on their role in advance, and directed to pass anyquestions about the project itself on to the developer staff who were present.

Methodology

27. We took public views in four ways. an eight-question questionnaire a token drop asking whether the event was useful or not word trees to allow people to express brief sentiments postcards that allowed people to express other thoughts


8/38

8

Questionnaire

28. Each person that attended the event had the opportunity to answer 8 shortquestions on their views about the development. As many as possible the

large majority - were approached on entry and told of the questionnaire, withmany taking a blank questionnaire to fill in later. The full text of thequestionnaire is at Annex B.

29. The respondents were prompted on entering the venue and on leaving themain exhibition space that there was a questionnaire available, and our team atthe exit point checked whether people had completed a questionnaire withone of the roving team.

Token drop

30. Each person that attended the event was asked to drop a ticket into a sealed,clear ballot box in response to the question Was this event useful?. A greenticket signified a yes answer and a pink ticket signified the answer no. Theballot box was marked with the question.

31. Attendees were prompted to leave a ticket as they were leaving the exhibition.

Word trees

32. Each person that attended the event was given the opportunity to write up onehope and one fear on two word trees at the event. These were situated atthe entrance/exit point from the venue.

Postcards

33. Postcards were available at the entrance/exit and from team members, onwhich participants could write contact details. People were also able to writemore general comments on them, and all comments received, or written onquestionnaires, are recorded later in the report at Annex C.


9/38

9

Results

Participation

34. Over two days more than 1,0002

people attended the event. For the purposesof understanding the potential audience for our questionnaire, we countedonly those who appeared to be adults, of whom there were 975, but a numberof children also attended. We checked when counting people that they wereintending to visit the exhibition and were not at the Hillcrest Centre on otherbusiness.

35. Exactly two thirds of attendees responded to the short questionnaire about the

development.

36. In addition, 624 participants responded to the question about the event byputting a ticket in the box (a response rate of 64%), and one hundred postcardswere left, of which 15 had comments other than contact details.

The Questionnaire

37. The questionnaire had eight questions.

1: Postcode or town of residence

38. 73% of those responding 3 indicated they were from Newhaven. Of those whowere not from Newhaven, all but a handful were from surrounding villages andtowns.

2: Benefits

39. Respondents were asked in terms of making sure that the developmentbenefits the town, what one thing is the most important for the developer tofocus on. Respondents were asked to choose one option only out of fourchoices or to supply an alternative answer.

40. The results from this question indicate that both local jobs and wider economicbenefits are important in ensuring the water park benefits the town. 38% of allrespondents thought that the developer should focus on ensuring jobs for as

2 We counted 975 adults attending the event, 509 on day 1 and 466 on day 2.3 Those who did not answer the question are excluded


10/38

10

many local people as possible and 37% of all respondents thought that thedeveloper should focus on ensuring that there are wide economic benefits.

(DNA = Did Not Answer)

41. Of the respondents living in Newhaven slightly higher percentage (39%)

agreed that the developer should focus on ensuring jobs for as many localpeople as possible. This indicates that local jobs are of slightly moreimportance to local residents than other options to ensure that thedevelopment benefits Newhaven.

42. Although the options of ensuring the water park is an eco-friendlydevelopment (8%) and providing a cheap residents pass for local people (6%)were less of a priority to all respondents a few respondents felt that all options

were equally important.

43. The most common additional comment given in answer to this question wasregarding traffic, infrastructure and access considerations. Respondents werealso concerned about ensuring the development of the town centre and thatinvestment goes into the town centre. The full list of additional comments is inAnnex C.


11/38

11

44. Some people responded to the question by querying the requirement tochoose only one answer, and twelve answered All in the other field. Thiswas a deliberate design decision on our part. Because all the issues areimportant, had we asked people to tick all issues they felt were important, wewould have very probably seen 100% responses on all issues, which is notuseful for planning further engagement. A few participants suggested using aranking method, which is slightly more complex to complete but would inhindsight be a good option for similar questions in later events.

3: Disbenefits

45. Respondents were asked in terms of the possible negative consequences of the development, what one thing do you think the developer should do mostto avoid.

46. The biggest concern by far was from traffic jams from people visiting the park.Over three quarters of people asked felt that the developers should work toavoid the negative consequence of traffic problems from the development.Concerns about traffic, infrastructure and access were common issuesexpressed throughout the two-day event which will be discussed in following

chapters.

(DNA=Did Not Answer)


12/38

12

47. Of the non-Newhaven resident respondents a slightly higher percentage (78%)agreed that the developer should avoid problems from traffic jams indicatingthat although traffic is a key issue for everyone it may be of slightly moreimportance to those living outside of Newhaven.

48. As with the previous question, some wanted the chance to answer all fifteenrespondents wrote this in the Other field.

49. In addition to the previously expressed concerns there was a wide range of additional comments ranging from preventing floods, and habitat loss toavoiding drawing people away from the town centre. The full list is at Annex C.

4: Local jobs

50. Respondents were asked The Developer has said that they want to hirepeople locally to build and run the site. What do you think they need to do tomaximise the number of local residents they employ? Respondents couldchoose any number of the four choices they thought applied and/or couldsupply an alternative answer.

51. The most popular answer was to train local people to do the work. 502 peopleagreed that the developers should train local people to do the work, 380people thought that they should advertise the jobs in the town and 360 saidthe developers should make links with local schools and colleges. However250 of the respondents thought the developers should do all three reflectingthat all of these options are important.

52. In addition to training local people being important individuals expressed the

importance of supporting and engaging with local people, businesses andorganisations (Jobcentre Plus and NewCEP) to train and employ local people.There were also suggestions to strengthen the commitment to hire peoplelocally to build and run the site. For example by specifying in tenders that apercentage of workers should be from Newhaven and not surrounding areas,verifying staff and contractors live in Newhaven and ensuring high skilledworkers are not brought in from elsewhere.


13/38

13

(DNA = Did not answer)

5: Design

53. Respondents were asked, what element of Newhaven they would most wantthe designer to reflect in working on the design. Respondents could chooseany number of the four choices they thought applied and/or could supply analternative answer.

54. The most popular answer was to reflect Newhavens maritime history in thedesign. 396 people agreed that the design should reflect Newhavensmaritime history, 348 people thought that it should reflect Newhavensdownland setting and 287 people said that the design should reflectNewhavens port and industry. Only 89 people thought that the design shouldreflect that Newhaven is an innovative town.


14/38

14

55. Respondents also suggested in individual text comments that the water parkcould

o reflect the sea and the beacho depict Newhavens piracy history and sailing shipso be designed by a renowned architect

6 & 7: Regeneration

56. Questions six and seven were designed to elicit a response on whether peoplethought the development could be positive for the town. It is important to notethat this is not the same as asking whether people support the development ornot, which is a question for the consultation, and would need to be supportedby detailed plans and a wider understanding of what the proposals are indetail.

57. The two questions were designed to draw out the level of general support forregeneration (which from our conversations in the town we expected to be very


15/38

15

high), and then to see whether participants thought that the water park couldbe the start of that regeneration.

58. As we expected, the answer was almost unanimous. 96% of respondents saidthat they supported work to regenerate Newhavens economy and improvetraffic flow around the town (89% definitely, 7% generally). Only tworespondents (0.3%) said they did not support regeneration, and the remaining4% did not know.

59. Question seven asked respondents whether from what they had seen at theinformation event they thought that the water park project could start thatregeneration in the town.

60. As might be expected, there was less certainty on the benefits of the projectthan on the benefits of regeneration in the abstract. This reflects, we believe,the early stage of the proposals. However, there was a positive answer to thequestion overall. 48% of all respondents thought the water park definitelycould start regeneration and 32% of respondents thought that the water parkprobably could start regeneration in Newhaven, so taken together 80% of participants believed it was more likely than not that the park could startregeneration in the town. On the no side of the argument, 8% thought thatthe water park probably could not and 3% that it definitely could not. 9%answered that they did not know.

61. If the did not knows are taken out of the equation, the yes answers werechosen by 88% of respondents, and the no answers were chosen by 12% of respondents.


16/38

16

62. Newhaven residents were slightly more positive about the water park startingregeneration than non-Newhaven residents. 82% of Newhaven residentsanswered either definitely or probably while 77% of non-Newhaven residentsanswered positively.

8: Feedback on future engagement

63. Approximately 500 people left their contact details (e-mail or postal address)on the questionnaire or on a postcard indicating they wish to continue to beengaged with the consultation process.

64. Question 8 of the questionnaire asked individuals how they would like to beinvolved in further consultation on this development.

65. The most popular method of how individuals would like to be involved infurther consultation was by having a public meeting. 362 people agreed thatthey would like to be involved in a public meeting, 318 people would like to begiven information by e-mail and 235 people would like to be kept involved bypaper newsletter. Only 98 people would like to be involved in onlinediscussions.


17/38

17

66. Other ways of staying engaged with the water park development that weresuggested included:

o Local media and local newspapero Websites and social mediao Information in local amenities such as libraries and supermarketso A referendum in the town once proposals are fully developed

Other comments

67. The comments and other issues written on the questionnaire are shown inAnnex C.

Token drop

68. The token drop used a clear, sealed box to collect tokens, red for no and greenfor yes, answering the question Was this event useful?. The sample of thosewho dropped a token was not the same as the sample who answered thequestionnaire, but there was a good degree of overlap. The final results were85% yes (that the event was useful) and 15% no (the event was not useful).


18/38

18

69. Because the token drop box was situated at the team table, we had theopportunity to hear reactions of people dropping tickets. These are oursubjective reflections of those views.

70. As might be expected given the eventual result, the majority of people foundthe event useful, and many said it had answered the questions they asked.Those who dropped negative tokens (a minority, it should be reiterated) werealmost uniformly looking for more and more definite information, includingpictures, details of what the building would look like, plans, and information onthe site (some of the information requested on the first day was provided onthe second). These will certainly be matters for discussion during theconsultation, the developers response when we raised the queries with themwas that it was too early in the process to provide these.

71. The comments left on the questionnaire and the fears tree suggest thatdemand for information is high.

72. This leads us to believe that for the main consultation period, good qualityaccessible information, provided early in the process, will be of particularlyimportant in creating a good-quality conversation in the town.

Word trees

73. On the way out of the exhibition attendees had the opportunity to add theirthoughts to word trees. They were able to add a hope and a fear for thefuture of Newhaven. All comments from the word trees can be found in Annex

C, they are pictured on the next two pages.


19/38

19


20/38

20

Post-event contributions

74. We received two emails and two completed questionnaires after the end of theevent. We have incorporated the comments in Annex C, but because theyarrived once our analysis was complete, we have not included them in thestatistics in the main report. For completeness, the answers to the questions inthe two late questionnaires were:

Town: 2 x Non-Newhaven Benefits: 1 x Jobs for local people, 1 x other (in Annex C)


21/38

21

Negatives: 1 x Traffic jams, 1 x Multiple answers (traffic, green space,noise, pollution, other)

Jobs: 2 x Advertise, train local people and make links with schools andcolleges, plus one additional comment.

Design: 2 x maritime history; 1 x port and industry, downland setting,other

Regeneration, general: 2 x yes, definitely Regeneration, this project: 1 x yes, definitely; 1 answered with comment Further consultations: 2 x information by email; 1 x public meetings,

online discussions, paper newsletter.


22/38

22

Annex A

OUR TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT

The Democratic Society is an independent membership organisation, whose goalsare to support the involvement of citizens in decisions and to improve democracy.

We are acting as independent facilitators during this project, and these terms of engagement set out what participants in the project can expect from us, and whatwe expect from participants.

We promise that

o We work only in the interests of good public conversation and the fair

representation of public viewso We will not be influenced in our management of the project or reporting of

public views by any outside agent or person. We do not treat participantswho are Demsoc members differently from those who are not.

o We take no position either in favour of or against an issue under discussion,and support the interests of no individual politician or political party, butfocus solely on hearing the full range of public views, and representingthem in fair proportion

o We take positive action to maximise the reach of our work, and to hear fromevery part of society and from every relevant geographical area.

o If we are paid for a project, we agree a fixed fee before it begins, andaccept no further money from any interested party, except to extend theprojects coverage or to continue it past the original end date. We acceptno payment by results, bonuses, or any other benefit or penalty conditionalon a particular outcome.

o If we receive non-financial benefits (for instance, loan of a space for ameeting) to the value of more than 20, or if neutral third parties such asresearch organisations and charities provide additional support to a project,we make it public.

o No one working on this project has any private or personal interest in thisproject or its outcome.

o We base the information that we provide on evidence, and show its source.Where it is provided by a party with an interest in the discussion wehighlight that fact.


23/38

23

o We listen to every representation and point of view, and as far as legally andpractically possible publish all raw data that we receive.

o We open up our process as far as we can, and restrict information only onthe basis of personal privacy, commercial confidentiality, and legalrestrictions. We respect the confidences of those who give us information inconfidence or anonymously.

o We appoint an accountable person for each project, who is responsible forensuring we live up to these promises.


24/38

24

Annex B

TEXT OF PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE

1: First, can you please give us your postcode (or if you would rather not, the townyou live in)

Postcode/town: ____________________________________

2: In terms of making sure that the development benefits the town, what one thingis the most important for the developer to focus on? (Tick one)

o Ensuring there are wide economic benefits

o Ensuring jobs for as many local people as possibleo Ensuring it is an eco-friendly developmento Providing a cheap residents pass for local peopleo Something else:

3: In terms of the possible negative consequences of the development, what onething do you think the developer should do most to avoid? (Tick one)

o Traffic jams from people visiting the parko Reduction in available green spaceo Late night noiseo An unattractive buildingo Pollutiono Something else:

4: The developer has said that they want to hire people locally to build and run thesite. What do you think they need to do to maximise the number of local residentsthey employ? (Tick all you agree with)

o Advertise the jobs in the towno Train local people to do the worko Make links with local schools and collegeso They dont need to do anything in particularo Something else:

5: In working on the design, what element of Newhaven would you most want thedesigner to reflect? (Tick all you agree with)


25/38

25

o Its maritime historyo Its port and industryo Its downland settingo That it is an innovative towno Something else:

6: In general, do you support work to regenerate Newhavens economy andimprove traffic flow around the town?

o Yes, definitelyo Generallyo Not reallyo Noo Dont know

7: From what you have seen today, do you think that the waterpark project couldstart that regeneration in the town?

o Definitelyo Probablyo Probably noto

Definitely noto Dont know

8: How do you want to be involved in further consultations on this development?(Tick all that apply)

o Information by emailo At public meetingso Discussions online

o Paper newslettero Dont want to be further involvedo Some other way

If you want to be involved, can we please take either your email address or yourpostal address:

Thank you.


26/38

26

Annex C

COMMENTS TAKEN DURING THE EVENT

Postcard drop comments

o Move railway station near to site. Provide a new road bridge over the river.o No access from the A27 Coast Road. Good idea but no access. C7 not a

good road and swing bridge.o Infrastructure. Need to put pressure on developer to do road

improvement. Bridge on A26 should be considered.o Smoke and light pollution. Noise funnelling up the valley. Construction

traffic. Traffic pollution from queuing traffic. No flow.o Would have been helpful to have this consultation when the developers

had some firm designs to show and answers to transport questions ratherthan we hope visitors get on the bus. Further exhibitions are needed whendesigns are available.

o Need information. 3D models. Plans. Looks fake. Knocked up by a smallchild. Professionalism that is missing. Need to make it look real. People

dont believe it. Dismissive. Make it look real.o Park needs to have spill over of economic benefits into the town.o Riverside walk should bring people up through the centre of town first.o Developers should walk through Newhaven at night and see what its like.o What about us golden oldies!!o Put it by the west beach.o Have the beach again.o As a concept for bringing employment, judging by the amount of building,

running the complex and the hotel -400 bed hotel- will need a fair amountof staff, a large percentage of the unemployed of Newhaven could well findthemselves in full time employment, working close to home. I doubt thatwill happen.

o I would like local children to design a mosaic for the bottom of the pool.The Start Art and Smart Art Groups would like to help. (contact detailssupplied)

o I swim most days. I would love water jets for massage, sauna, steam room,

chill out area. Plus all the proposed things. (contact details supplied)


27/38

27

o I suspect (and believe) that far more information is being hidden fromNewhaveners. Why wait until January to tell us how big the thing will be, isthere something else we are not being told?

o The name Round Table is misleading. It sounds like it is something to dowith the English Round Table charity when in fact it is to do with a MiddleEastern company do the profits go to the middle east?

Hope and Fear Trees

Hope

o Go ahead asap.o That is goes ahead. X2o With proper consultation a good project could be developed.o Brilliant concept to put Newhaven on the map.o That there are benefits.o That the people of Newhaven benefit economically and as a community.o Starts regeneration.o Driver for regeneration of Newhaven. Hope!o Dont forget the Port.o Local jobs.o Jobs, hope for a beach. Also economy.o Not too expensive. Perhaps a season ticket for local residents.o Brings money into the area.o No corruption.o If it goes ahead a riverside footpath to the town.o The same as a bypass in the centre of the town.o New river crossing (bridge) essentialo Make Newhaven a more popular place. Sun!!!o Fun! Fun! Fun!o The sun!o Not Surfin USA but Surfin Newhaven! Hope.o Indoor bowling green.o Water frozen. Ice skating rink for ice hockey. Newhaven Tigers!

Fear

o Traffic x5.o Roads and transport will not cope efficiently with increased traffic.


28/38

28

o Insufficient road and rail access.o Infrastructure.o Access.o Encourages car dependence.o That sustainability will not be high on the agenda.o Noise and light pollution.o Negative impact on environment.o Another blot on the Ouse Valley.o Spoiling our beautiful countryside. Not a good idea.o Poor Newhaven. A dumping ground.o Rebirth of the beach! (not to be sidelined)o Seaside resort needs a beach.o Instead of cost of building brand new water park why not open what was a

perfectly good beach.o With current economic downturn, which could last for years, what if people

cant afford to come, the project goes bust, and Newhaven is left with adecaying structure that is unused and that has taken away green land? (egMargate Dreamland) And once we a left with a decaying structure, and asnow the land will now have been designated as brownfield not green it willbe built on and we will have lost that green land forever!

o Scheme for N/E Kent would take away Newhavens trade.o Wanted a map to see exactly where it will be! This is vital why didnt we

see this?! Hear hear I agree.

Comments from questionnaire

Question 2 (Benefits)

o All of above X10o All except residents pass and wind resistanto All of above anything would be v. goodo Dealing with the transport situationo Improving the road systemo Roads X2o Traffic considerations and ferry serviceo Traffic issue, Newhaven is poorly served by road links, the current A26

cannot cope with increased traffic, neither can the A259 or the C7o Transport links (new bridge)


29/38

29

o Solve all existing traffic problems first before they buildo sorting out the access system - improving road layouto Improved road network, liaise with the French, sort day trips on the ferry,

and open up the beacho No build up of traffic on the C7o Infrastructureo Ensure the infrastructure considers increase in traffic and effect on the town

centre; regeneration of the town centreo Bring in related regeneration developments which aid the economy of

Newhaveno Having a wider strategy for the town's redevelopment that will ensure long-

term regenerationo Development of the Town Centreo Invest money into the development of the town centreo Increasing shopping in towno Linking it to Newhaven Town centre in a sympathetic way, pleasant river

walk, cafes etc ensuring people want to come into Newhaven and not juststay and spend money in the waterpark

o Rebranding Newhaveno Suitable design for Newhaven's charactero Ensuring it coincides with the needs of the local communityo Not detrimental to the quality of life for residentso Minimal impact on residents in the valleyo That you mitigate adverse effects on local residentso Main structure away from existing propertieso Disabled access and facilitieso Accessible for as many people as possibleo

Residents Pass and Traffico Ensuring this will be a healthy project in every way, economic and

environment but most importantly for families, children and young peopleo Not spoiling the view and natural environment of the area, then ranked

answers CBDAo Drop-in house prices, noise, people, carso Bring sunshine to Newhaven, and a beacho Sports Centre of Excellence - National Sports Arena

o Make sure there isn't corruption involved in the development and makesure local people have a say


30/38

30

o Move it somewhere elseo It shouldn't happeno I don't think you care about the town only profit. Putting something into the

town to show what you are prepared to do before all this and not patroniseme by saying no-one wants to sell your property [illegible] I don't believeyou care about the locality

o [illegible] the South Downs national park proposes a dutyo Get the whole infrastructure improved significantly, i.e. roads, rail, ferry, air,

hotels, restaurants, and the like, including quality shopso B then Co Ranked answers BCAD and Redevelopment of the town centreo Ranked answers BDAC

Question 3 (Disbenefits)

o All of above x13o I believe all applyo All of above, and sort the road system outo Overall inconvenience to the town eg traffic plus trade to the siteo Nothing to benefit wider Newhaveno Drawing people away from the town centreo Flood plain situation, Newhaven is close to flooding alreadyo Floodso Dramatic and significant improvement to this very depressed area.o Working in partnership with local providerso Increasing segregation - not open to all in the communityo Late night noise; unattractive building; pollutiono Preventing habitat losso Rich people's money for rich people's pleasureo Should avoid being aimed at further influx of low socioeconomic status

individuals to this areao Unsocial (drinking) behaviour increases; unfamily-friendly gamblingo CPOso Newhaven people are fed up with developments being promised and not

happeningo Going bankrupt and leaving a half developed site


31/38

31

o No negatives.o Ranked answers AEDBCo Ranked answers DBAo Ranked answers BCDo Spoiling an established wildlife area

Question 4 (Jobs)

o Make jobs availableo Pay a fair wage well above minimum wage for all staff o Pay them wello Advertise onlineo The first thing to do would be to advertise it to local people first using the

job centre. As there is the option to do work trials through the JobCentregiving people a change to prove they can do the job

o Purpose built Job Centre dedicated to waterpark in town centreo Link up with local job centreo Use existing businesses in Newhaven, i.e. from the Newhaven Enterprise

Centre where 40+ small businesses are based.o Contact Newcepo Work with Newcepo Try every channel available to reach local people, offering training and

support in applying for jobs, raising people's aspirations and confidenceand bearing in mind it is an area of deprivation

o Supporting other local businesses in training and employing local peopleo Positively discriminate in favour of Newhaven residentso Exclude non-local people if skills exist hereo Training most important as this would have a lasting benefit beyond the

project itself. Decent wages.o Support new college in towno Lost skills in towno Only train people who want to do it X2o Engage properly with local expertise, businesses, colleges and communityo Work with local peopleo Use local firms X2o Research local companies of excellence like concordmarlin.com


32/38

32

o Ring-fence jobs and contractso When out to tender, stipulate that the winning contractor has a % of total

workers i.e. from Newhaven not surrounding areas if labour can be sourcedo Ensure staff and building contractors live locally so can verify this with their

home address or postcode. Spread the work between local traders andbuilding contractors. Then advertise that they have been involved withproject

o Ensure that all jobs, skilled particularly, are not taken by people shipped infrom other areas

o The last development employed no-one locally and construction workerswere brought in temporarily. I don't believe you.

o What do you regard as local people who actually live here now or peoplebrought in who will maybe live locally

o Guarantees must be obtained to link the whole enterprise with the town,the waterpark must not develop as a self-contained complex, independentof the town. Without guarantees, this could happen.

o Because the incinerator is such an eyesore can we get the council taxreduced

o Brian Aldridge Academy is not a local schoolo We don't want it to be built

Question 5 (Design)

o Anythingo Combination of all aboveo It should look awesomeo Just has to be outstanding/specialo Something new for the futureo Suitable for purposeo Sustainability and Eco innovationso Protecting amenityo The design needs to be sympathetic to the historic and natural environment

of Newhaveno Include town centre in theme - make it park of the park not on the edge of ito Its community spirit x2o Community focus


33/38

33

o The beacho Sun and beach themeo The seao Sailing shipso Piracy historyo Dome like Eden projecto Centreparcs feelo By the nature of the project it is unlikely to reflect any of the above so

should be innovative design of architectural merito I would like an internationally renowned architect to be involved. Mona

Halbid [unclear]o Not much left to reflecto An eye soreo Prefer not to see it at allo It's a waterpark, those things would be impossibleo Try to get rid of its dumping area image incinerator, overhead power lines,

aggregates, scrap metal etc etc.

Question 6 (General regeneration)o A leading question. No real detailed plans. Access needs to be sorted out.o A stupid question.o Leading question. Want to see specific plans before making my mind.o Needs more thought on infrastructure as currently this would be insufficient

especially in building phase.o About time. The county and district councils are desperate to get a large

private investment into the area, but they seem to think that just a bypassround the town is all thats needed, and the rest will follow for the SouthEast. I believe this is totally wrong.

Question 7 (Regeneration, this project)

o Not enough information yet.o Hopefullyo Possibly


34/38

34

o Many peripheral developments, leaving the town centre dead in the middleand

o Possibly, depending on how it's done. Risk is that it will just result in moremovement in and out of the area but nothing here.

o Not enough information to make decisiono No, not without a significant improvement in the infrastructure in the South

East, and not just a piecemeal bit of road alteration in Newhaven.

Question 8 (further consultation)

o Physical presenceo Personal face to face meetingo Via Town Councilo Business networkingo Local newspapero Info of meetings/further consultation in local papero Local mediao Local media informationo Local newspapero Mediao Newspaper article updateso I would like access to a regularly updated website that I could visit when I

wantedo Website x2o Local newspapers websiteo Social mediao Librarieso Supermarketso Arts and crafts projects for familieso Mail questionnaireo Happy to collaborate on the development of a riverside walking/cycling

track from Newhaven to Leweso To be informed of any planning proposals and any railway consultation and

highway proposalso Need more info on network and traffic then I'll supporto Concern about the roads but otherwise support


35/38

35

o I think it would be really good - Samantha aged 8

Other comments (not linked to questions)

o Newhaven needs it.o I'm very positive about this development - it is just what Newhaven needs.o Brilliant idea.o Lets get this started thanks.o I think the whole scheme is bursting with potential, and I'm hopefully in

favour of it. I think it's a shame, though, that the banners had spellingmistakes - first impressions!

o Traffic flow around and through.o limited information regarding developmento Cynical about regeneration because of the lack of information given.o Don't have enough detail re: how it is part of a coherent vision of Newhaven

- how it will link up with pleasant public space and regenerate the towncentre. Also no detail on traffic plan and pedestrian access from station.

o No information maps models, drawings, where. Develop the town not justthings around the town. Sports area free/ park etc public park. Herb

gardens etc - more public outdoor space that is free.o No actual plan of where it is proposed, no model of what is envisaged it will

look like.o Not enough information to form any real opinion no model no size or scale.o Of course - if it is sustainable long term.o Very difficult to judge as there was very little information about location,

impact, transport, design and regeneration.o Local people if it goes ahead should get a free pass. I am really concerned

about traffic and congestion because we have enough of it already. At themoment Newhaven itself has nothing to offer other than its neglected state.I haven't really seen anything today, no maps of the site and some possibly,believable words of how good it will be for NHV.

o Need the right work not any old rubbish. There was nothing to see.Consider how to manage teenagers leaving the site at 9.30 headingtowards a deserted town.


36/38

36

o Regeneration of brownfield sites - support in the right place. Incinerator isan eye sore and new developments proposed for countryside. Eg east sideDon't disagree with the development but needs to be in the right place.

o Intrusive construction on a much wider scale than anything else here. Vastlyincreased traffic will harm the town and its immediate environmentenormously, irrespective of improved flow.

o Sounds very good but given that it is on the coast traffic comes from a fewdirections so very heavy. Do more for the people and town. Get rid of thering road. Not a huge space.

o No casino would destroy town cos of trouble from disaffected youth. Causetrouble. This thing will mask the problem. Do something for the young -give them jobs and raise self esteem. Valuable jobs - building self esteeminto the minor jobs.

o Bonuses etc. eg family get in free or get free tickets. All the peoplenewhanven peace haven, seaford - a community thing as well. Halloween,bonfire night etc for local people 2x per year.

o Other theme parks are not in the middle of town. Need some give and take.% of profits into the town. Decent housing. Should be something peoplecan boast about.

o Transport links. How long will it last? Really needs regeneration.o Traffic flow is council not developer and no faith in them.o Very important as traffic congestion around the town already a problem.o Would not expect visitors to the park to visit the town.o Make sure traffic would be directed in and out through A26 NOT C7.o More parking required in town.o Town centre first.o I am not sure that this will help other than providing employment which has

to be a good thing.o Visitors will not go to the town centre before or after their visit, it will

however help with providing more money for local people to spend by wayof increased employment.

o Only spoil it. Any new road will only take people away from the town notbring them in to regenerate.

o Legally-enforceable guarantees are needed to ensure that it does notbecome an isolated, self-contained complex.

o Interested in involvement and opportunity for local businesses.o Involve jobcentre in work experience for youngsters 18-24.


37/38


38/38

newhaven information event survey report

Documents