Agenda item

REPORT OF THE SERVICE DIRECTOR – PLACE

To advise Cabinet of the key findings from the Community Survey results (March – June 2023).

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

(1)   Commented on and noted the key findings and observations from round one of the Community Survey and comment on the approach to future surveys (as detailed in section 8.5).

(2)   Supported the suggested approach set out at 8.5, save for 8.5.4 whereby Cabinet would encourage future survey results and associated action plans, being brought to Cabinet. 

REASON FOR DECISIONS: To ensure that Cabinet is aware of the results of the Community Survey (our first digital residents’ survey) and how they compare to the Local Government Association (LGA) June 23 Resident Satisfaction phone survey results.

Audio recording – 18 minutes 37 seconds

The Chair invited Councillor Val Bryant, as Vice Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to present the referral on this item. Councillor Bryant advised that the key findings of the survey detailed in section 8.5 detailed how the first digital survey results compared to the phone survey results.

The Chair advised that Councillor David Levett had submitted a question to the Cabinet, in with the Constitution. The Chair invited Councillor Levett to ask his question and to add any further comments he wanted to make to the referral from Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Levett asked, ‘Does the Leader of the Council have any concerns with the results of the Community Survey?’ and provided further comments for Members, including that:

·       There was a dramatic change to the results of the last survey in 2022 which either highlighted that the services had deteriorated in short space of time, or that the methodology used in the survey had changed.

·       The number of respondents shown in the digital survey was 715, but this was usually 1000 responses from a telephone survey and therefore this survey did not have a larger response than the 2022 survey.

·       These results would have a negative impact on the reputation of the Council.

·       Therefore, future survey results should still be brought back to Cabinet and monitored if they were changing so dramatically, rather than only being published on the website.

The Chair thanked Councillor Levett and agreed that there was a need to understand why there had been such a difference in the results and to also understand what methodology had been used to obtain them.

The Communications Manager advised that:

·       This survey had been carried out by Zencity who were clear that quality data, which is representative of our district makeup, was much more valuable than quantity. .

·       Zencity had obtained their results from targeting a representative sample of the district which matched the population census data.

·       The representative responses collected by Zencity equated to the 715 respondents.

·       The Council had reached 1075 residents though its own channels, but this data was not representative, so only included the open-ended question results.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·       Councillor Sean Prendergast

In response to questions, the Communications Manager advised:

·       Zencity had used the population of census data variables to adjust the weighting of responses to ensure that the sample distribution aligned with the population of North Herts.

·       Rake weighting had enabled Zencity to ensure they had a true sample of the North Herts population of the district.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Elizabeth Dennis advised:

·       The Council needed more detail on how the survey was carried out and the methodology behind it.

·       A further recommendation should be added to Section 8.5.4 to ensure that Cabinet continued to oversee all future survey results.

·       All Councillors were influencers and should consider their own impact on resident views of North Herts Council.

·       Actions plans were being developed across the directorate which should be made visible so that it was made clear to residents that the Council had listened and were taking action.

·       The Cabinet were concerned about the results of the survey, and they would be acting on this.

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis proposed the motion, as amended, and Councillor Amy Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

(1)   Commented on and noted the key findings and observations from round one of the Community Survey and comment on the approach to future surveys (as detailed in section 8.5).

(2)   Supported the suggested approach set out at 8.5, save for 8.5.4 whereby Cabinet would encourage future survey results and associated action plans, being brought to Cabinet. 

REASON FOR DECISIONS: To ensure that Cabinet is aware of the results of the Community Survey (our first digital residents’ survey) and how they compare to the Local Government Association (LGA) June 23 Resident Satisfaction phone survey results.