Download - Residents Survey 2018 - London Borough of Hounslow · 2019-02-04 · possible. In addition to this the report also looks to make comparisons to the Local Government Association (LGA)

Research Report

Residents Survey 2018

Prepared for: London Borough of Hounslow

Prepared by: BMG Research


Prepared for: London Borough of Hounslow

Prepared by: BMG Research

Date: January 2019

Produced by BMG Research

© BMG Research Ltd, 2019

www.bmgresearch.co.uk

Project: 1640

Registered in England No. 2841970

Registered office:

BMG Research Beech House Greenfield Crescent Edgbaston Birmingham B15 3BE UK

Tel: +44 (0) 121 3336006

UK VAT Registration No. 580 6606 32

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626

Market Research Society Company Partner

The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 20252:2012

The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 9001:2015

The International Standard for Information Security Management ISO 27001:2013

Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company

Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z5081943

A Fair Data organisation

Cyber Essentials certification

The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of BMG Research Ltd.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Reporting ................................................................................................................ 1

2 Key Findings .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Overall perceptions of local area and Hounslow Council ......................................... 4

2.2 Detailed perceptions of Council performance .......................................................... 4

2.3 Local services ......................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Communications and local democracy .................................................................... 5

2.5 Residents’ concerns ................................................................................................ 5

2.6 Community safety ................................................................................................... 6

2.7 Respect and consideration ...................................................................................... 6

3 Overall perceptions of local area and Hounslow Council ................................................ 7

3.1 Overall perceptions of local area ............................................................................. 7

3.2 Overall satisfaction with how Council runs things .................................................. 10

3.3 Perceptions of Council providing value for money ................................................. 12

3.3.1 Reasons for disagreement ............................................................................. 13

3.4 Key Driver Analysis ............................................................................................... 14

4 Detailed perceptions of Council performance ............................................................... 16

4.1 General performance ............................................................................................ 16

4.2 Listening and communicating ................................................................................ 19

4.3 Making the local area a better place to live and work ............................................ 21

5 Local services .............................................................................................................. 22

5.1 Use of Council-provided services .......................................................................... 22

5.2 Perceptions of local services ................................................................................. 23

6 Communications and local democracy ......................................................................... 27

6.1 Keeping residents informed about services and benefits....................................... 27

6.2 How residents obtain information about the Council and Council services ............ 28

6.3 Internet access ..................................................................................................... 31

6.4 Awareness of elected representatives ................................................................... 32

7 Residents’ concerns ..................................................................................................... 36


7.1 Areas of Council focus .......................................................................................... 36

7.2 Heathrow airport third runway proposal ................................................................. 40

7.3 Changes to Council tax ......................................................................................... 43

8 Community Safety ........................................................................................................ 45

8.1 Feeling safe .......................................................................................................... 45

8.2 Anti-social behaviour ............................................................................................. 49

8.3 Addressing crime and anti-social behaviour .......................................................... 52

9 Respect and consideration ........................................................................................... 54

9.1 Getting on well together ........................................................................................ 54

9.2 Pulling together to improve the local area ............................................................. 55

9.3 Unpaid help........................................................................................................... 56

Appendix 1: Sample profile ................................................................................................. 57

Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire ....................................................................................... 61

Appendix 3 : List of tables and figures ................................................................................. 77

Appendix 4: Statement of Terms ......................................................................................... 80

Introduction

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

In 2018, BMG Research was commissioned to undertake a survey of London Borough

of Hounslow residents. This document summarises the findings of the 2018 survey

conducted among 1,256 local residents aged 18+ in September and October 2018. A

separate cross-tabulated data report is available for more detailed analysis.

1.2 Methodology

The survey was administered on a face-to-face basis, using CAPI technology at pre-

selected sampling points across Hounslow. To generate these sampling points Index

of Multiple Deprivation scores (IMD) were ranked from high to low at Lower Super

Output Area (LSOA) level within each ward. These were then segmented into quintiles

within each ward. After the LSOAs within the borough had been sorted in this way,

sampling points (COAs) were selected randomly and all addresses were identified

from the postcode address file within each COA to form the sample. A target of

approximately 10 interviews was to be achieved per sampling point with 6 sampling

points selected per ward to generate circa 62 interviews per ward. Whilst the

interviewers were able to approach any address within a sampling point, quotas were

set by age, gender and ethnicity within each ward to ensure a representative spread

by demographic profile.

1.3 Reporting

Based on the Hounslow population aged 18+ being 207,540 as recorded in the 2016

mid-year population statistics, a sample size of 1,256 has a confidence interval of

±2.76 at a 95% level of confidence. This means that we can be 95% certain that the

percentages reported from this sample are within 2.76 percentage points of the

percentages that would be observed if the entire Hounslow population was

interviewed.

Weights have been applied to the data by ward, age, gender and tenure using 2016

mid-year population statistics or where this is not available the 2011 census statistics.

This is to ensure that the data is fully representative at the borough level as well as

ensure comparisons with the 2016 data. Analysis has been provided in this report at

Area Forum scale.

Throughout the report comparisons have been made to the 2016 survey results, where

possible. In addition to this the report also looks to make comparisons to the Local

Government Association (LGA) findings from their public polls on resident satisfaction

with local councils, which is conducted every four months via the telephone. For the

purpose of this report the June 2018 LGA survey data has been used.


2

Throughout this report the word “significant” is used to describe differences in the data.

This indicates where the data has been tested for statistical significance using the t-

test. This testing identifies ‘real differences’ (i.e. difference that would occur if we were

able to interview all residents in the borough rather than just a sample). However, as

already noted the actual percentages reported in the data may vary by ±2.76

percentage points at the 95% confidence level on an observed statistic of 50%. In

tables any figures shown in bold are significantly greater than the total. Arrows are

used to highlight significant differences from the 2016 survey with a red arrow showing

a negative change and a green arrow a positive change from 2016. Where the change

from 2016 is not necessarily positive or negative black arrows are used.

Figures and tables are used throughout the report to assist explanation and analysis.

Although occasional anomalies appear due to ‘rounding’ differences, these are never

more than +/-1%. These occur where rating scales have been added to calculate

proportions of respondents who are satisfied at all (i.e. either very or fairly satisfied).

Key Findings

3

2 Key Findings


4

2.1 Overall perceptions of local area and Hounslow Council

Over four-fifths of Hounslow residents are satisfied with their local area as a place to

live. This is consistent with perceptions of the local area in 2016 and more positive

than perceptions in the latest nationwide polling conducted by the LGA during June

2018.

Words used by residents to describe their local area in Hounslow are on the whole

positive with over a quarter of residents mentioning the area being quiet and peaceful

and close to a quarter mentioning the area being nice and friendly.

Over seven in ten residents are satisfied with the way Hounslow Council runs things

which has increased significantly since 2016 and satisfaction is significantly higher

amongst Hounslow residents than the scores in the June 2018 LGA nationwide polling

data.

Close to two thirds agree that Hounslow Council provides value for money. This is a

significant increase from agreement in 2016 as well as being significantly higher than

the June 2018 LGA nationwide data. There is some uncertainty on this however, with

over a fifth of residents stating they neither agree nor disagree or they do not know.

The main reason for residents disagreeing that the Council provides value for money

are ‘poor refuse/recycling service’, ‘lack of cleanliness/litter/dirty area’ and ‘don’t do

much for what we pay/don’t give value’.

2.2 Detailed perceptions of Council performance

In terms of the Council’s general performance half of residents feel the Council speaks

up for their Borough across London and nationally and are doing a better job now than

one year ago either to a great deal or some extent. These statements attracted a

higher than average percentage of the response ‘Don’t know’.

The extent to which residents feel general performance statements apply to Hounslow

Council have all decreased significantly since 2016 with the exception of ‘Hounslow

Council is doing a better job now than one year ago’ which is consistent.

With regards to the Council’s performance on the theme of listening and

communicating, the statement that has the lowest level of agreement in terms of a

great deal or to some extent is the Council are easy to get through on the phone with

under a half of residents stating this which was also the lowest in 2016.

Like the general performance statements, the extent to which residents feel the

listening and communicating statements apply to Hounslow Council have decreased

significantly since 2016 with the exception of ‘Hounslow Council is easy to get through

to on the phone’ which remains consistent. The largest decrease from 2016 is in

relation to residents feeling the Council has staff who are friendly and polite.

More residents said the Council was making the local area a better place for people to

live rather than work. However, there was a high percentage of residents saying they

did not know about the local area as a place to work.

Key Findings

5

2.3 Local services

The services most used by residents were refuse collection services,

parks/playgrounds/open spaces and recycling collection services. The Council

services least used by residents were activities for teenagers/young people and

Council supported arts heritage or cultural facilities.

Amongst all residents local transport services are among the most highly rated

services. The service which receives the most negative response is repair of roads

and pavements.

For the majority of services users rate them more highly than residents overall.

2.4 Communications and local democracy

Over seven in ten residents feel they are well informed about the services and benefits

the Council provides which is consistent with the 2016 results. The proportion who feel

well informed is significantly higher than the national average produced by the latest

round of LGA polling.

Council-produced sources are still very much the most used by residents to obtain

information about the Council and the services it provides. Although there has been a

decrease in residents’ use of Hounslow Matters since the 2016 survey there has been

an increase in the number of residents stating they obtain information from the Council

website.

The majority of residents access the internet at home via a computer/laptop or via a

phone/tablet.

Residents awareness of elected representatives was generally low with around three

in ten able to name one of the two MPs that represent Hounslow and just over one in

ten able to name at least one of their Councillors or the leader/deputy leader of the

Council.

2.5 Residents’ concerns

Residents felt the areas the Council should focus on in the coming year were street

cleaning, the level of crime and road/pavement repairs.

Support of the proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport has increased

significantly since 2016 with close to three fifths of residents supporting it. There are

similar levels of agreement to 2016 that the Council should support the Government’s

decision on this matter but the level of support for the idea that the Council should

increase its work or seek compensation for those affected have decreased

significantly.

Residents views on what the Council should do with regards to changes in Council

Tax, following the Government’s policy to reduce how much it pays the Council in

grants, were mixed.


6

2.6 Community safety

The vast majority of Hounslow residents feel safe outside in their local area during the

day with perceptions of safety after dark significantly lower than during the day.

Perceptions of safety after dark are significantly lower than the levels of safety seen in

the nationwide polling conducted by the LGA. The most common reasons given for

these feelings are drug users/dealers, general level of crime and drunken behaviour.

Consistent with 2016 the biggest perceived anti-social behaviour issue is rubbish or

litter lying around which was the top issue across all area forums. Anti-social

behaviour issues have become more of a perceived problem since 2016.

Over three fifths of residents feel the Council is effectively working with the police to

address crime and anti-social behaviour in their local area.

2.7 Respect and consideration

Close to nine in ten residents agree that their local area is a place where people from

different backgrounds get on together.

Just over seven in ten residents agree that people pull together to improve the local

area which is a significant increase from agreement in 2016.

The majority of residents have not given any unpaid help at all over the last twelve

months to any groups, clubs or organisations.

Overall perceptions of local area and Hounslow Council

7

3 Overall perceptions of local area and Hounslow Council

Residents were asked to rate their general perceptions of the local area in which they

live, before being asked for their perceptions of Hounslow Council’s performance. The

residents’ local area was defined as within 15 to 20 minutes walking distance from

their home.

3.1 Overall perceptions of local area

A key proxy measure of whether the Council is having a positive impact on changing

lives for the better is whether overall satisfaction with the local area among residents is

high. As shown below, in 2018 over four-fifths (84%) of Hounslow residents are

satisfied with their local area as a place to live, including a quarter (25%) who are very

satisfied. Just 7% are dissatisfied. This is relatively consistent with the 2016 results

where 81% were satisfied and 9% dissatisfied.

Looking at the latest nationwide polling conducted by the LGA (June 2018) 79% are

satisfied with their local area as a place to live which is significantly lower than the

levels of satisfaction amongst Hounslow residents and 12% are dissatisfied which is

significantly higher.

Figure 1: Satisfaction with local area as a place to live (All responses)

Unweighted bases in parentheses: All respondents

25

20

30

59

61

49

9

9

9

5

7

8

2

2

4

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

LGA (1004)

Very satisfied (%) Fairly satisfied (%)

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (%) Fairly dissatisfied (%)

Very dissatisfied (%) Don't know (%)

Satisfied (very/fairly)

84%

82%

79%


8

If we look at the results by area forum this shows that those residents living in

Chiswick (97%) and Isleworth & Brentford (88%) are more likely to be satisfied with

their local area as a place to live, whereas those living in Central Hounslow are more

likely to be dissatisfied (11%).

Table 1: Satisfaction with local area as a place to live – by Area Forum

Area Forum Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied

Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth (312) 80% 12% 8%

Central Hounslow (250) 79% 10% 11%

Chiswick (190) 97% 2% 1%

Heston & Cranford (253) 81% 12% 7%

Isleworth & Brentford (251) 88% 7% 4%

Satisfaction with the local area decreases with age from 92% amongst those aged 18

to 24 to 84% for those aged 65+. Similarly, and perhaps reflecting age, satisfaction

also decreases by length of time in the borough from 96% amongst those that have

been in the borough for less than a year to 82% for those who have been in the

borough for 10 years or more.


9

15

12

12

6

4

7

4

5

5

4

5

1

4

2

1

10

7

2

6

6

5

6

6

5

4

3

4

3

1

1

5

6

1

4

5

4

4

3

3

4

3

5

2

1

2

Quiet/peaceful area

Nice/friendly area

Generally good/happy with area

Good greenery/parks and open spaces

Good public transport/transport links

Convenient

Good community/people

Clean/tidy area

Safe area

Noisy/loud area

Unclean/dirty area

Good local amenities/facility

Crime Incl: ASB

Busy/overcrowded

Parking Issues

1st mention (%) 2nd mention (%) 3rd mention (%)

Residents were then asked to give three words they would use to describe their local

area as a place to live. These words have been coded in to general themes to provide

an indication of what was covered most frequently by residents. Some words used to

describe the area were covered under the same theme and therefore are only counted

once under all mentions.

Only themes which in total are mentioned by 4% or more residents are included in the

figure below.

On the whole the words used to describe Hounslow are positive with over a quarter of

residents mentioning the area being quiet and peaceful (26%) and close to quarter

mentioning the area being nice and friendly (23%).

Figure 2: Three words used to describe local area as a place to live (All responses)

Unweighted base: All respondents (1256) * Total mentions of 4% or more

All mentions

26%

23%

15%

15%

15%

15%

14%

14%

12%

12%

9%

9%

8%

4%

4%


10

3.2 Overall satisfaction with how Council runs things

Turning to perceptions of Hounslow Council, residents were asked to rate their overall

satisfaction with the way the Council runs things. All respondents were reminded

beforehand that Hounslow Council is responsible for a range of services such as

parks, leisure centres, planning, social care services, recycling, road maintenance, and

street cleaning.

Over seven in ten residents (72%) are satisfied with the way Hounslow Council runs

things, including a relatively low proportion (14%) who are very satisfied. This has

increased significantly since 2016 – an 8 percentage point increase, which

corresponds with a significant decrease in dissatisfaction (18% in 2016 to 12% in

2018). As with the measure of satisfaction with the local area as a place to live,

satisfaction is significantly higher amongst Hounslow residents than the scores in the

June 2018 LGA nationwide polling data (61% satisfied with how their Council runs

things and 20% dissatisfied).

Figure 3: Satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things (All responses)


14

7

14

58

57

47

15

18

19

8

12

12

4

6

8

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

LGA polling June 2018 (1004)

Very satisfied (%) Fairly satisfied (%)

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (%) Fairly dissatisfied (%)

Very dissatisfied (%) Don't know (%)

Satisfied (very/fairly)

72%

64%

61%


11

As can be seen in the table below residents in Heston & Cranford and Isleworth &

Brentford are most likely to be satisfied with the way the Council runs things (77% and

79% respectively) and those residents in Central Hounslow the least likely (63%).

However, this is due to these residents being significantly more likely to state neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied (20%) rather than dissatisfied.

Table 2: Satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things – by Area Forum

Area Forum Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied



Chiswick (190) 73% 18% 8%



Similar to satisfaction with the local area satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council

runs things decreases with age and with time in borough.

This is explored further in the key driver analysis in section 3.4 where we look to find

out which factors in the survey have the greatest impact on satisfaction.


12

3.3 Perceptions of Council providing value for money

Residents were then asked to consider the range of services Hounslow Council

provides to the community, not just the services their household uses. With this in

mind, they were asked to what extent they agree that the Council provides value for

money. Close to two thirds (65%) agree that Hounslow Council provides value for

money, while 13% disagree. This is a significant increase of 11 percentage points from

the 54% who agreed back in 2016 that Hounslow provide value for money as well as

being significantly higher than the June 2018 LGA nationwide data where 45% agree.

Over a fifth (22%) of residents neither agree nor disagree, or don’t know, perhaps

indicating some uncertainty on this, although this has decreased significantly since

2016 (27%) as has disagreement (-7 percentage points).

Figure 4: Agreement on whether Hounslow Council provides value for money (All responses)


Although Heston & Cranford is one of the areas in which residents are more likely to

be satisfied with the way Hounslow Council runs things, they are less likely to agree

that Hounslow Council provides value for money (59%). It is important to note though

that this is due to the fact that they are more likely to have some uncertainty around

this rather than disagreeing – 26% neither agreeing or disagreeing or not knowing.

Residents in Chiswick are most likely to agree that Hounslow Council provides value

for money (74%).

11

4

9

54

49

36

19

24

28

8

14

16

5

6

11

3

3

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

LGA (1004)

Strongly agree (%) Tend to agree (%)

Neither agree nor disagree (%) Tend to disagree (%)

Strongly disagree (%) Don't know (%)

Agree (strongly/tend to)

65%

54%

45%


13

Table 3: Agreement on whether Hounslow Council provides value for money – by Area Forum

Area Forum Agree Disagree Neither/Don’t know

Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth (312)

68% 14% 18%


Chiswick (190) 74% 14% 13%



Those residents who feel well informed about the services and benefits Hounslow

Council provides are more likely to agree the Council provides value for money (75%

compared with 41% who do not feel informed). This suggests by keeping residents

more informed about the services and benefits it provides, the Council could increase

the overall level of agreement that it provides value for money.

3.3.1 Reasons for disagreement

Those who disagreed that the Council provides value for money (164 respondents in

total) were asked, as an open-ended question about why they gave this answer. The

responses given have been grouped into themes.

Some residents refer here to the amount of money they pay the Council (‘high level of

Council Tax’ - 14%, ‘don’t do much for what we pay/don’t give value’ – 20%). However,

those disagreeing that the Council provides value for money are more likely to refer to

perceived shortcomings in the services they receive, suggesting that the standards of

service provision are at least as important as the levels of Council Tax in shaping

value for money perceptions.

Of the service-related reasons given for disagreement that the Council provides value

for money, the most frequently mentioned are ‘poor refuse/recycling service’ (25%),

‘lack of cleanliness/litter/dirty area’ (20%) and ‘poor state of roads/pavements/

footpaths’ (18%). The impact of these is highly visible, to nearly all residents, so it is

perhaps not surprising that these are key in negative value for money perceptions.

In addition to this other low level reasons given by at least 3% of those disagreeing

that the Council provides value for money, included:

Poor services offered (13% - 22 respondents)

Crime/unsafe area/lack of policing (6% - 10 respondents)

They don’t listen/act on our concerns (3% - 5 respondents)

Lack of investment in the area (3% - 4 respondents)


14

3.4 Key Driver Analysis

The following is a regression showing which factors in the survey have the greatest

impact on satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things. All the factors below

have a significant impact, but are ranked in order of their importance in the context of

satisfaction.

Variables from the survey which we felt were important and would contribute to overall

satisfaction were input in to an OLS model to gauge the relationship they have. The

factors listed below account for 53% of the variation in satisfaction with the way

Hounslow Council runs things. From this we can see that residents’ agreement that

Hounslow Council provides value for money is the most important in terms of

influencing residents’ satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things.

Table 4: Key drivers of satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things

Key driver Rank order Importance

Q4. To what extent do you agree or disagree that Hounslow Council provides value for money?

1 - Most important

30%

Q6. To what extent do you think these statements apply to Hounslow Council? Hounslow Council is efficient and well run

2 16%

Q1. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?

3 14%

Ward 4 11%

Q7. What is your opinion of ...?: Repair of roads and pavements

5 8%

Q23. Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think each of the following are? Rubbish or litter lying around

6 5%

Q24. How effective do you think the Council is at working with the Police to address crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in your local area?

7 4%

Q21. How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area after dark?

8 3%

Q6. To what extent do you think these statements apply to Hounslow Council?: Hounslow Council responds quickly when asked for help

9 3%

Q26. To what extent would you agree or disagree that people in this local area pull together to improve the local area?

10 3%


15

The model included other variables which turned out not to have a significant impact

and would only account for an additional 1% variation in satisfaction. These included:

Q6 To what extent do you think these statements apply to Hounslow Council:

Hounslow Council is doing a good job

Q6 To what extent do you think these statements apply to Hounslow Council:

Hounslow Council keeps residents informed about what they are doing

Q9 Overall, how well do you think Hounslow Council keeps residents informed

about the services and benefits it provides

Q31 How long have you lived in Hounslow

Q33 Which of the following best describes how your household occupies your

home

Age

Gender

It is important to note though that all variables in the survey are highly correlated.


16

4 Detailed perceptions of Council performance

Having given overall perceptions of their area and Hounslow Council, residents were

then given a series of positive statements around the Council’s performance on a

range of more detailed measures, and asked to state to what extent they thought these

statements apply to Hounslow Council. These were asked as a single battery of

questions but have been grouped by theme below.

4.1 General performance

Around three fifths of residents feel Hounslow Council either a great deal or to some

extent is doing a good job (63%), is trustworthy (63%), is efficient and well run (61%)

and does enough for people like them (58%). Only a half of residents feel the Council

speaks up for their Borough across London and nationally (52%) and are doing a

better job now than one year ago (50%) either to a great deal or some extent.

However, these statements attracted the most ‘Don’t know’ responses, in particular in

relation to the Council speaking up for their Borough across London and nationally with

22% stating they do not know.

Detailed perceptions of Council performance

17

A great deal/to some extent

63%

63%

61%

58%

52%

50%

Figure 5: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – General performance (All responses) 1

Unweighted base 1256: All respondents

1 +/- 1% ‘rounding’ differences appear here due to rating scales being added to calculate proportions of respondents

15

15

13

14

12

11

49

48

48

44

40

40

24

20

22

25

20

24

7

7

8

9

6

11

5

10

8

8

22

14

Is doing a good job

Is trustworthy

Is efficient and well run

Does enough for people like me

Speaks up for my Borough across London and nationally

Is doing a better job now than one year ago

A great deal (%) To some extent (%) Not very much (%)

Not at all (%) Don't know (%)


18

The extent to which residents feel the statements apply to Hounslow Council have

decreased significantly since 2016 with the exception of ‘Hounslow Council is doing a

better job now than one year ago’ which is consistent.

Table 5: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – General performance (A great deal/to some extent) (All responses)

Hounslow Council ... 2018 2016 +/- change from 2016

Is doing a good job 63% 81% -18%

Is trustworthy 63% 72% -9%

Is efficient and well run 61% 73% -12%

Does enough for people like me 58% 65% -7%

Speaks up for my Borough across London and nationally

52% 61% -9%

Is doing a better job now than one year ago 50% 49% +1%


19

4.2 Listening and communicating

With regards to the Council’s performance on the theme of listening and

communicating, around three fifths of residents feel the Council either a great deal or

to some extent keeps residents informed about what they are doing (63%) and has

staff who are friendly and polite (62%). Over a half of residents feel the Council listens

to the concerns of local residents (55%), acts on them (54%), involves residents when

making decisions (52%) and responds quickly when asked (52%). The statement that

has the lowest level of agreement in terms of a great deal or to some extent is the

Council are easy to get through on the phone with under a half of residents (48%)

stating this, which was also the lowest in 2016.

Figure 6: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Listening and communicating performance (All responses) 2



17

20

12

11

11

12

13

47

43

43

43

41

40

35

23

18

25

26

24

25

23

7

6

9

8

10

9

15

7

14

11

12

13

14

14

Keeps residents informed about what they are doing

Has staff who are friendly and polite

Listens to the concerns of local residents

Acts on the concerns of local residents

Involves residents when making decisions

Responds quickly when asked for help

Is easy to get through to on the phone



A great deal/ to some extent

63%

62%

55%

54%

52%

52%

48%


20

Like the general performance statements, the extent to which residents feel the

listening and communicating statements apply to Hounslow Council have decreased

significantly since 2016 with the exception of ‘Hounslow Council is easy to get through

to on the phone’ which remains consistent. The extent to which residents feel the

Council has staff who are friendly and polite has decreased by 19 percentage points

from 2016.

Table 6: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Listening and communicating performance (A great deal/to some extent) (All responses)

Hounslow Council ... 2018 2016 +/- change from 2016

Keeps residents informed about what they are doing

63% 72% -9%

Has staff who are friendly and polite 62% 81% -19%

Listens to the concerns of local residents 55% 61% -6%

Acts on the concerns of local residents 54% 61% -7%

Involves residents when making decisions 52% 59% -7%

Responds quickly when asked for help 52% 57% -5%

Is easy to get through to on the phone 48% 47% -1%


21

4.3 Making the local area a better place to live and work

Residents were also asked to respond on whether the Council is making the local area

a better place to live and work. Around three fifths of residents (62%) said the Council

either a great deal or to some extent was making the local area a better place for

people to live which was greater than those who said the Council was making the local

area a better place to work (57%). However, there was a high percentage of residents

saying they did not know about the local area as a place to work.

Figure 7: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Making the local area a better place to live and work (All responses)3


Consistent with the 2018 performance seen in the previous section, the extent to which

residents feel the Council is making the local area a better place for people to live or

work a great deal or to some extent has decreased significantly since 2016.

Table 7: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Making the local area a better place to live and work (A great deal/to some extent) (All responses)

Hounslow Council is... 2018 2016 +/- change from 2016

Is making the local area a better place for people to live

62% 71% -9%

Is making the local area a better place for people to work

57% 62% -5%


16

13

47

45

24

22

8

6

6

15

Is making the local area a better place for people to live

Is making the local area a better place for people to work



A great deal/ to some extent

62%

57%


22

5 Local services

Moving on from the Council as a whole, residents were asked to give their perceptions

and usage of Council-run services, plus local transport services.

5.1 Use of Council-provided services

Residents were asked which services, provided by Hounslow Council, they or

members of their household had used in the last 12 months. Consistent with 2016, the

services most used by residents were refuse collection services (79%),

parks/playgrounds/open spaces (76%) and recycling collection services (75%). The

Council services least used by residents were activities for teenagers/young people

(10%) and Council supported arts, heritage or cultural facilities (11%).

Amongst residents with children under 16 in the household use of activities for

teenagers/young people rises to 15%.

Figure 8: Services used in the last 12 months (All responses)


4%

10%

11%

25%

36%

75%

76%

79%

None of the above

Activities for teenagers/young people

Council supported arts heritage and cultural facilities

Council leisure and sports facilities (including swimming pools)

Libraries

Recycling collection services

Parks, playgrounds and open spaces

Refuse collection services

Local services

23

5.2 Perceptions of local services

In addition to the more general perceptions of the Council, residents were also asked

to comment on specific services and activities, mostly provided by the Council but also

local transport services. This was asked of all residents regardless of use.

Among the thirteen service areas presented to respondents, local transport services

are among the most highly rated, in particular bus services, with over four-fifths of

residents (84%) rating this as excellent, very good, or good. Activities for

teenagers/young people and repairs of roads/pavements attract the lowest proportion

rating the service as excellent/very good/good (47% and 45% respectively).

The service which receives the most negative response is repair of roads and

pavements, with one-third (34%) rating this as poor/very poor/extremely poor. This is

in keeping with the findings on value for money, which found repair of roads and

pavements one of the top reason given by residents who disagree that the Council

provides value for money (see section 3.3). Whilst residents who give this service a

negative rating are more likely to rate it poor (14%) than very poor (13%) or extremely

poor (7%), repair of roads and pavements nonetheless has the highest proportion

rating the service as extremely poor.

There are a number of service areas which residents feel unable to rate and therefore

attract a higher than average level of don’t know responses. These are the services

used least by residents in the last 12 months – Council supported arts heritage/cultural

facilities (23%), activities for teenagers/young people (19%), council leisure/sports

facilities (16%) and libraries (16%).


24

Table 8: Rating of local services (All responses)

Service Excellent/Very

Good/Good Average

Poor/Very Poor/Extremely

Poor

Don’t know/Refused

Libraries 64% 14% 7% 16%


67% 15% 13% 5%


61% 17% 21% 1%

Street cleaning 56% 19% 24% 1%

Street lighting 70% 14% 16% 1%

Repair of roads and pavements

45% 20% 34% 1%

Council leisure and sports facilities

57% 14% 13% 16%


51% 14% 12% 23%


65% 14% 20% 1%

Bus services 84% 8% 3% 4%

Train services 77% 8% 4% 11%

Tube services 80% 10% 4% 6%


47% 15% 20% 19%

Local services

25

The figure below shows the opinions of service users, based on those used in the last

12 months, in comparison to overall perceptions. As can be seen users rate the

services more highly with the exception of refuse collection services and recycling

collection services where users rate this below overall perceptions (although not

significant). The largest differences between users and residents overall can be seen

with regards to council supported arts heritage/cultural facilities and activities for

teenagers/young people where users rate this 17 percentage points higher than

residents overall.

Figure 9: Rating of local services – Users vs Overall (Excellent/very good/good)

Unweighted base 1256: All respondents – Overall ; Base for users varies

47%

65%

51%

57%

61%

67%

64%

64%

62%

68%

69%

59%

71%

78%




Council leisure and sports facilities



Libraries

Users Overall


26

The table below explores perceptions further against those from the 2016 survey. As

can be seen perceptions of train services, street lighting, parks/playgrounds/open

spaces and libraries have all decreased significantly. The only service area where

perceptions have increased significantly since the 2016 survey is activities for

teenagers/young people with 47% rating this service area as excellent/very good/good

compared to 41% in 2016.

Table 9: Rating of local services (Excellent/very good/good) (All responses)

2018 2016 +/- change from 2016

Bus services 84% 86% -2%

Tube services 80% 82% -2%

Train services 77% 83% -6%

Street lighting 70% 79% -9%

Parks, playgrounds and open spaces 67% 73% -6%

Recycling collection services 65% 64% 1%

Libraries 64% 69% -5%

Refuse collection services 61% 64% -3%

Council leisure and sports facilities 57% 59% -2%

Street cleaning 56% 54% 2%


51% 49% 2%

Activities for teenagers/young people 47% 41% 6%

Repair of roads and pavements 45% 48% -3%

Communications and local democracy

27

6 Communications and local democracy

Residents were then asked a series of questions around the theme of Council

communications, and on their internet access.

6.1 Keeping residents informed about services and benefits

Over seven in ten residents (71%) feel they are well informed about the services and

benefits the Council provides which is consistent with the 2016 results. Just over a

quarter (27%) feel they are not well informed (29% in 2016); however this group is

dominated by those who feel they are ‘not very well’ informed (20%) rather than ‘not

well at all’ informed (7%). The proportion who feel well informed is significantly higher

than the national average produced by the latest round of LGA polling, which indicated

that 53% feel well informed about their Council’s services and benefits.

As noted previously those residents who are satisfied with the way the Council runs

things are more likely to feel well informed about services and benefits the Council

provides (78% for those satisfied compared with 39% for those dissatisfied).

Figure 10: How well informed do residents feel about Hounslow Council (All responses) 4



Well Informed (very/fairly)

71%

68%

53%

9

6

10

61

62

42

20

24

34

7

5

13

3

2

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

LGA (1004)

Very well informed (%) Fairly well informed (%) Not very well informed (%)

Not well at all informed (%) Don't know (%)


28

Residents in Chiswick are more likely to say they feel well informed about what

Hounslow Council is doing (80%) whereas residents in Isleworth & Brentford are more

likely to say they do not feel well informed (39%). This does not reflect the earlier

findings on the way the Council runs things where Isleworth & Brentford were the most

satisfied, suggesting that satisfaction in this area is influenced by other factors.

Table 10: How well informed do residents feel about Hounslow Council – by Area Forum

Area Forum Informed Not informed


73% 25%

Central Hounslow (250) 75% 20%

Chiswick (190) 80% 20%

Heston & Cranford (253) 68% 29%

Isleworth & Brentford (251) 59% 39%

6.2 How residents obtain information about the Council and Council

services

Residents were asked from which sources they obtain most of their information about

the Council and the services it provides and were prompted with a list of potential

sources. Council-produced sources are still very much the most used: Hounslow

Matters (30%), leaflets, posters or other Council printed matter (28%) and the Council

website (18%). There has been a decrease in residents’ use of Hounslow Matters

since the 2016 survey where 48% said this is where they obtain information. However,

there has been an increase in the number of residents stating they obtain information

from the Council website from just 8% in the 2016 survey. As Hounslow Matters is

available via the Council website it is possible that there is some cross-over between

these two channels.

Almost no residents said that they obtained most of their information from democratic

representatives (either through direct contact with Councillors or attending Council

meetings), although it is possible that more residents use these methods on an

occasional basis. This is in keeping with residents’ low awareness of who their local

Councillor is (section 6.4).


29

Figure 11: How residents obtain information about the Council (All responses)


10%

2%

4%

1%

2%

8%

24%

48%

5%

1%

1%

1%

2%

5%

9%

18%

28%

30%

None of the above

Voluntary/Community organisations

By phone

Council Meetings

Local Press

Social Media (facebook, twitter etc.)

Word of mouth

The Hounslow Council website

Leaflets, posters or other Council printed matter

Hounslow Matters (the Council's magazine for residents and people who work in the Borough)

2018 (1256)

2016 (1203)


30

This varied by area forum, as shown in the table below, with those residents more

likely to obtain information via a certain source than residents overall shown in bold.

The top three sources for each area forum have also been highlighted.

Table 11: How residents obtain information about the Council – by Area Forum

Bedfont Feltham

Hanworth

Central Hounslow

Chiswick Heston and Cranford

Isleworth and Brentford

Hounslow Matters (the Council's magazine for residents and people who work in the Borough)

31% (1) 32% (2) 33% (1) 28% (2) 28% (1)

Leaflets, posters or other Council printed matter

12% 39% (1) 32% (2) 33% (1) 25% (2)

The Hounslow Council website

25% (2) 10% (3) 13% (3) 23% (3) 15% (3)

Word of mouth 15% (3) 8% 3% 2% 12%

Social Media (facebook, twitter etc.)

10% 1% 7% 1% 6%

Local Press 4% 0% 3% 2% 2%

Council Meetings 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

By phone 1% 0% 1% 3% 2%

Voluntary/Community organisations

<0.5% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Area Forums <0.5% 0% 2% 0% 0%

None of the above 2% 7% 6% 6% 3%

There were variations in how residents obtain their information by quintile with those in

the least deprived quintile being more likely to use Hounslow Matters (40%) but least

likely to use leaflets, posters or other Council printed matter (14%). Age was also a

contributing factor in which source residents used with the use of Hounslow Matters

increasing with age from 20% amongst those aged 18 to 24 to 43% amongst the

oldest age group (65+) and similarly use of the Council website decreased with age to

just 7% amongst those aged 65+.

This is further emphasised in the next section regarding internet access where 41% of

residents aged 65+ state that they do not use the internet.


31

6.3 Internet access

Residents were asked to state from a list of methods how they access the internet.

Consistent with 2016 the majority of residents said they access the internet at home

either via a computer/laptop (83%) and/or via a phone/tablet (76%).

Just under one in ten residents (9%) stated that they do not use the internet and

perhaps unsurprisingly this percentage increases significantly by age with nobody

aged 18 to 24 saying they do not use the internet to 41% of those aged 65+. This

therefore needs to be a consideration when the Council is looking at how it

communicates with residents.

Figure 12: Residents internet access (All responses)


83%

76%

6%

4%

4%

4%

1%

9%

At home via a computer or laptop

At home via phone or tablet

Public access (libraries)

Internet cafes

Shared computer

Computer of friend or family member

Other

I do not use the internet


32

6.4 Awareness of elected representatives

Residents were then asked a few questions about the people that have been elected

to represent their views. The first question aimed to assess resident awareness of the

two MPs who represent the Hounslow constituencies with residents being asked if they

could name the MP who represents the constituency that they live in. The names of

these individuals were within the survey script, but were not shown to respondents.

Over three fifths of residents (63%) could not name their parliamentary MP, with a

further 8% providing an incorrect name and 4% naming the MP representing the other

constituency. A total of 26% of residents overall did name either Ruth Cadbury or

Seema Malhotra as their MP unprompted.

Looking at this by constituency shows that some residents (2%) in the Brentford &

Isleworth constituency mentioned Seema Malhotra as their MP (the MP representing

the other constituency) and 6% from the Feltham & Heston constituency mentioned

Ruth Cadbury as their MP (the MP representing the other constituency) so although

residents can name an MP it is not necessarily their constituency MP indicating that

this is not necessarily clear.

Figure 13: Can name MP that represents constituency (All responses)


26%

4%

8%

63%

33%

2%

9%

57%

18%

6%

7%

69%

Yes

Named MP representing other constituency

Incorrect name mentioned

Don't know

Overall (1256) Brentford and Isleworth (628) Feltham and Heston (628)


33

Following this residents were then asked whether they could name any of the three

elected councillors for their area of Hounslow. Again the names of these individuals

appeared in the script for the interviewers to then code how many the respondent had

got correct but were not shown to respondents prior to answering this question. If

respondents wanted to know who their elected councillors were following this question

the interviewers were then able to show the names to the respondent. Over three

quarters of residents (76%) were unable to mention any of their elected councillors

with a further 12% providing names however none of them were correct. A total of

13% of residents were able to name at least one of their Councillors with close to a

half of these residents (6%) being able to correctly name all three of their elected

councillors. In the 2016 survey, 11% of residents were able to name at least one of

their Councillors. Although this is not a significant difference there has been a shift in

the number of Councillors residents can name with only 2% of residents in 2016

naming two or three Councillors which is significantly fewer than in 2018.

Figure 14: Can name elected Councillor for area (All responses)


3%

4%

6%

12%

76%

Named one Councillor

Named two Councillors

Named three Councillors

Mentioned names and none are correct

No names mentioned/don't know


34

The table below summarises the responses by area forum. Residents in Isleworth &

Brentford were more likely than any other area to name a Councillor with 19% naming

at least one Councillor correctly, however 18% of Isleworth & Brentford residents also

named Councillors incorrectly. Residents in Heston & Cranford were the least likely to

mention any names of Councillors (84%).

Table 12: Can name elected Councillor for area - by Area Forum

Bedfont Feltham

Hanworth

Central Hounslow



No names mentioned/don’t know

75% 80% 78% 84% 63%

Mentioned names and none are correct

14% 8% 12% 6% 18%

Any correct 11% 11% 9% 10% 19%

Finally residents were asked whether they could name the leader of the Council.

Around three quarters of residents (76%) said they were unable to name the leader of

the Council. A further 16% of residents, although they said they could name the

leader, the name mentioned was incorrect. Just under one in ten residents (8%)

mentioned Steve Curran as the leader of the Council which is slightly higher than in

2016 where 6% named him as the leader, although this is not significant.

Figure 15: Can name Council leader (All responses)


8%

16%

76%

Leader named

Incorrect name mentioned

No names mentioned


35

Again this varied somewhat by area forum with those residents in Isleworth &

Brentford again being the most likely to be able to name the leader (14%). Residents

in Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth and Chiswick were the most likely to say they could

not name the leader (81% and 92% respectively) whereas residents in Heston &

Cranford were the most likely to provide incorrect names (31%).

Table 13: Can name Council leader - by Area Forum

Bedfont Feltham

Hanworth

Central Hounslow



No names mentioned 81% 75% 92% 63% 75%

Incorrect name mentioned 12% 19% 5% 31% 11%

Leader named 6% 6% 3% 7% 14%


36

7 Residents’ concerns

7.1 Areas of Council focus

In order to provide an assessment of resident priorities moving into 2019, all

respondents were presented with a list of 18 possible areas of Council focus. From this

list residents were asked to select up to three that they feel the Council should focus

on more in the next year, combining all of the responses given, Figure 16 below shows

that the top 3 areas the Council should focus on in the coming year has changed from

those in 2016. Street cleaning is now the most commonly chosen area as a priority

(30%), followed by the level of crime (29%) and road/pavement repairs (27%) which

featured in the top reasons why residents disagree Hounslow Council provide value for

money. Although these were not the top 3 in 2016 it is important to note that they

were the next highest priorities following the top 3, as can be seen in the table

overleaf.

Figure 16: Top 3 areas the Council should focus more on in the next year (All responses)

Residents 2018

Street cleaning (30%)

The level of crime (29%)

Road and pavement repairs

(27%)

Residents 2016 Activities for young people

(27%)

Keeping Council Tax low (27%)

Affordable homes (27%)

Residents’ concerns

37

Table 14: Council priorities for residents compared to 2016 survey (All responses)

2018 Rank 2016 Rank

+/- change

from 2016

Street cleaning 30% 1 24% 6 6%

The level of crime 29% 2 25% 4 4%

Road and pavement repairs 27% 3 25% 4 2%

Affordable homes 26% 4 27% 1 -1%

Keeping Council Tax low 24% 5 27% 1 -3%

Public health 20% 6 12% 9 8%

Activities for young people 17% 7 27% 1 -10%

Facilities for young children 17% 7 10% 10 7%

The level of traffic congestion 17% 7 16% 8 1%

Job prospects for young people 14% 10 19% 7 -5%

Education provision 12% 11 8% 11 4%

Parks and open spaces 11% 12 8% 11 3%

Air quality 10% 13 7% 13 3%

Community activities 9% 14 5% 15 4%

Sports and leisure facilities 5% 15 7% 13 -2%

Cultural facilities (e.g. libraries, museums) 4% 16 4% 16 0%

Public transport 4% 16 5% 15 -1%


38

Exploring this in more detail by area forum shows variation in priorities with the top

priority for each of the area forums being different, as follows:

Bedfont, Feltham and Hanworth : The level of crime (32%)

Central Hounslow : Street cleaning (40%)

Chiswick : Road and pavement repairs (44%)

Heston and Cranford : Keeping Council Tax low (33%)

Isleworth and Brentford : Affordable homes (32%).

Further analysis also indicates other priorities that should be more of a focus for the

Council in the coming year for certain areas:

There is more of a need amongst Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth residents for the

Council to focus on parks and open spaces (15%).

Amongst Central Hounslow residents there is more of a need for the Council to

focus on street cleaning (40%) as well as facilities for young children (21%) and

education provision (16%).

Whilst in Chiswick it is road/pavement repairs (44%) and air quality (16%) that

residents are more likely to state compared to the total.

For Heston & Cranford residents are more likely to say they would like the

Council to focus on keeping Council Tax low (33%) and the level of traffic

congestion (28%).

In Isleworth & Brentford there appears to be less of a need for the Council to

focus on the overall top priorities like street cleaning and the level of crime and

more of a need to focus on other things like affordable homes (32%), job

prospects for young people (18%), community activities (12%) and cultural

facilities (8%).


39

Table 15: Council priorities for residents (All responses by Area Forum)

Bedfont Feltham

Hanworth Rank Central

Hounslow Rank Chiswick Rank

Heston and

Cranford Rank

Isleworth and

Brentford Rank

Activities for young people

19% 7 18% 8 12% 10 17% 6 15% 10

Affordable homes

29% 2 24% 3 26% 3 17% 6 32% 1

Air quality 5% 14 12% 11 16% 8 13% 10 9% 13

Community activities

9% 13 6% 14 8% 14 9% 12 12% 11

Cultural facilities (e.g. libraries, museums)

3% 16 2% 17 3% 18 3% 17 8% 15

Education provision

12% 12 16% 9 10% 11 6% 14 16% 9

Facilities for young children

18% 8 21% 7 13% 9 14% 8 18% 7

Job prospects for young people

14% 10 12% 11 9% 12 14% 8 18% 7

Keeping Council Tax low

22% 5 23% 4 25% 4 33% 1 19% 5

Parks and open spaces

15% 9 12% 11 9% 12 8% 13 10% 12

Public health 20% 6 22% 5 21% 6 13% 10 23% 2

Public transport

3% 16 4% 15 5% 16 6% 14 5% 18

Road and pavement repairs

27% 3 22% 5 44% 1 26% 5 22% 4

Sports and leisure facilities

5% 14 4% 15 6% 15 6% 14 6% 17

Street cleaning

27% 3 40% 1 29% 2 32% 2 19% 5

The level of crime

32% 1 30% 2 25% 4 31% 3 23% 2

The level of traffic congestion

14% 10 15% 10 21% 6 28% 4 8% 15

Town centres

3% 16 3% 16 4% 17 2% 18 9% 13


40

Residents were asked if there were any other issues not mentioned which they felt

require more attention from Hounslow Council. This was an open question and any

responses given have been coded in to themes. The majority of residents (72%) did

not have any other issues to mention. Those issues being mentioned by at least 2% of

residents are outlined below. As can be seen many reiterated issues of concern from

the previous question with issues around the top two priorities mentioned previously

(street cleaning and the level of crime) also coming through.

Poor refuse/recycling service (5%)

Increase security/police presence (3%)

Poor parking facilities including too expensive (3%)

Crime/unsafe area (3%)

Facilities (2%)

Lack of cleanliness/litter/dirty area (2%)

7.2 Heathrow airport third runway proposal

Residents were asked their views on the proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow

Airport.

There has been a significant increase in the number of residents supporting the

proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport from 44% in 2016 to 59% in 2018

with around one fifth of residents (22%) opposing which is a significant decrease from

the 29% in 2016.

Figure 17: Support for Heathrow Airport’s proposed third runway (All responses)


25

18

34

26

17

25

8

9

14

21

2

1

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

Strongly support (%) Tend to support (%)

Neither support nor oppose (%) Tend to oppose (%)

Strongly oppose (%) Don't know (%)

Support (strongly/tend to)

59%

44%


41

The support of the proposal varied by area forum with residents in Bedfont, Feltham &

Hanworth being more likely to support the proposal (67%) and those in Chiswick and

Isleworth & Brentford the least likely to support the proposal (47% and 52%

respectively). For Chiswick this was due to the fact they were more likely to oppose

the proposal (28%) as well as neither support nor oppose the proposal (24%) whereas

for Isleworth & Brentford this was due to the fact they were more likely to neither

support nor oppose the proposal (23%) rather than oppose it.

Table 16: Support for Heathrow Airport’s proposed third runway – by Area Forum

Area Forum Support Oppose Neither


67% 12% 20%


Chiswick (190) 47% 28% 24%



Earlier in the year the UK Parliament voted to support the proposal to build a third

runway at Heathrow Airport. Residents were asked how they think the Council should

respond. Close to a half of residents (49%) think that the Council should support the

Government’s decision to approve the proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow

Airport which was similar to the levels of support seen in 2016 (46%).

However, there has been a significant decrease in the level of residents stating that

the Council should increase its work to reduce the impact of congestion, pollution and

noise locally (18% compared with 32% in 2016) and that the Council should seek

compensation/mitigation from Heathrow Airport for residents and businesses who are

affected by the proposal (11% compared with 25% in 2016).

It should be noted that residents could choose more than one option so it was possible

for residents to say that although they support the Government’s decision that the

Council should increase its work or seek compensation as well.

Those residents who support the proposal themselves were more likely to say that the

Council should support the Government’s decision with 79% of those who support the

proposal stating the Council should support the Government’s decision.


42

Figure 18: Council’s reaction to the UK Parliament’s decision to support Heathrow Airport’s proposed third runway (All responses)


Looking at this by area forum we can see that residents in Central Hounslow and

Heston & Cranford were more likely to say the Council should support the

Government’s decision (59% and 60% respectively). However, residents in Heston &

Cranford were also more likely to state that the Council should increase its work to

reduce the impact (25%) and seek compensation for residents and businesses

affected by the proposal (15%). Residents in Isleworth & Brentford, which was one of

the areas least likely to support the proposal previously, were also more likely to feel

that the Council should seek compensation for residents and businesses affected by

the proposal (15%).

Table 17: Council’s reaction to the UK Parliament’s decision to support Heathrow Airport’s proposed third runway – by Area Forum

Area Forum Oppose Support

Increase work

Seek compensation

Nothing Don’t know


12% 49% 20% 7% 18% 8%

Central Hounslow (250) 25% 59% 12% 11% 6% 4%

Chiswick (190) 26% 38% 16% 7% 16% 10%

Heston & Cranford (253)

21% 60% 25% 15% <0.5% 10%

Isleworth & Brentford (251)

23% 37% 17% 15% 14% 13%

21

25

49

46

18

32

11

25

11

8

9

5

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

Actively oppose the Government's desicion (%)

Support the Government's desicion (%)

Increase its work to reduce the impact of congestion, pollution and noise locally (%)

Seek compensation/mitigation from Heathrow Airport for residents and businesses who are affected by the proposal (%)

Do nothing (%)

Don't know (%)


43

Residents were asked if there were any other things not mentioned which they felt

Hounslow Council should do now that the Government has voted to support a third

runway. This was an open question and any responses given have been coded in to

themes. The majority of residents (95%) did not have anything else to mention. There

were only two concerns that got mentioned by at least 1% of all residents and that

was:

Concerns about increase in noise/planes at night (1%)

Concerns about increased pollution/minimise pollution (1%)

7.3 Changes to Council tax

Finally in this section of the survey residents were asked their views on Council Tax as

the government is continuing its policy of reducing how much it pays local authorities

including Hounslow in grants and assumes that the Council will help meet this shortfall

by increasing what people pay in Council Tax by around 4% each year. It was stated

to respondents if Hounslow is to increase Council Tax by 4% that it is required by the

Government to use 2% of this to fund adult social care services. Whilst the Council

will look for ways to improve value for money residents views of what the Council

should do were somewhat mixed with around a quarter of residents stating Council

Tax should be kept the same but services cut (27%), another quarter (26%) stating the

Council should increase council tax by around 4% - with 2% used to fund adult social

care services and another quarter of residents (25%) stating Council Tax should be cut

and services reduced even more.

A number of residents were also uncertain about what the Council should do with 13%

stating that they did not know. Around one in ten residents (9%) mentioned something

other than the options given and this included:

Keep Council Tax same with no other effect (5%)

Cut Council Tax with no other effect (1%)

Cut Council Tax and improve services (1%)

Keep Council Tax same and improve services (1%)

Something else (1%).


44

Figure 19: Opinions on Council Tax (All responses)


Opinions varied by area forum with those in Chiswick and Isleworth & Brentford more

likely to say the Council should increase Council Tax by 4% (32% and 38%

respectively). Residents in Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth were more likely to say the

Council should keep Council Tax the same but cut services (38%) whilst those in

Central Hounslow and Heston & Cranford were more likely to state that the Council

should cut tax and reduce services even more (41% and 37% respectively).

Table 18: Opinions on Council Tax – by Area Forum

Area Forum Increase by 4%

Keep same but cut services

Cut Tax and reduce

services more Don’t know


20% 38% 17% 16%

Central Hounslow (250) 20% 23% 41% 9%

Chiswick (190) 32% 24% 13% 16%

Heston & Cranford (253)

24% 21% 37% 10%

Isleworth & Brentford (251)

38% 26% 15% 13%

27%

26%

25%

9%

13%

Keep Council Tax the same but cut services

Increase Council Tax by around 4%

Cut Council Tax and reduce services even more

Other

Don't know

Community Safety

45

8 Community Safety

In order to provide an assessment of community safety perceptions in Hounslow, all

residents were asked about how safe they feel in their local area both during the day

and after dark. Residents were also asked to consider how much of an issue six crime

and anti-social behaviour issues are where they live.

8.1 Feeling safe

During the day, the vast majority of Hounslow residents feel safe outside in their local

area with around nine in ten residents (92%) stating they feel safe during the day in the

local area including 43% who give the most positive response of very safe. This is

consistent with the feelings of safety during the day seen in the 2016 survey and in

comparison to nationwide polling conducted by the LGA in June 2018. The proportion

of residents stating that they feel ‘very safe’ during the day (43%) has fallen

significantly when compared with the 2016 survey (58%).

Figure 20: Perceptions of safety during the day (All responses)5



43

58

62

48

36

32

4

3

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

LGA (1004)

Very safe (%) Fairly safe (%)

Neither safe nor unsafe (%) Fairly unsafe (%)

Very unsafe (%) Don't know (%)

Safe (very/fairly)

92%

94%

94%


46

As is common in such questions, perceptions of safety fall after dark with 65% of

residents feeling safe outside locally in these circumstances and 17% feeling unsafe.

While levels of safety after dark are consistent with the levels seen in the 2016 survey,

they are significantly lower than the levels of safety seen in the nationwide polling

conducted by the LGA. To rule out any links that this may be connected to the time of

year that the LGA survey is conducted - June 2018 – we have also looked back at the

results collected in October 2017 and a similar level of feeling safe is seen (76%).

Figure 21: Perceptions of safety after dark (All responses)


20

15

33

45

48

41

16

13

11

11

17

9

6

5

5

2

2

1

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

LGA (1004)

Very safe (%) Fairly safe (%)

Neither safe nor unsafe (%) Fairly unsafe (%)

Very unsafe (%) Don't know (%)

Safe (very/fairly)

65%

63%

75%

Community Safety

47

By area residents in Chiswick are most likely to feel safe during the day (98%) and

after dark (80%). Residents in Isleworth & Brentford were also notably more likely to

feel safe after dark (75%) than the total across Hounslow. Residents in Central

Hounslow are more likely to either say they feel unsafe after dark (21%) or neither safe

or unsafe (20%). Residents in Central Hounslow were also more likely to say they feel

unsafe during the day (6%).

Table 19: Perceptions of safety during day and after dark – by Area Forum

Area Forum Safe Neither Unsafe

During the day



Chiswick (190) 98% 1% 1%



After dark



Chiswick (190) 80% 10% 9%




48

As well as the differences seen by area, perceptions of safety outside after dark varies

by gender with females significantly more likely to feel unsafe in this scenario than

males (19% compared to 15%). Feelings of safety also decreased with age and those

in the most deprived quintile were more likely than the total to feel unsafe (22%) as

were those of Asian ethnicity (20%).

Those who indicated that they feel either fairly or very unsafe in their local area after

dark were asked to give a reason for this in their own words. These responses were

reviewed and where possible were grouped into common themes. As is shown by the

figure below the most common reasons given by those feeling unsafe locally after dark

are connected to drug users and /or dealers (29%), general level of crime (25%) and

drunken behaviour (20%). Beneath this, gangs of youths hanging around, lack of

police presence, the type of people around and poor street lighting were mentioned by

around one in ten of those who feel unsafe locally after dark.

In 2016 the top five responses why residents feel unsafe after dark were gangs of

youths hanging around (30%), general level of crime (22%), drunken behaviour (16%),

drug users/drug dealers (15%) and general unsafe area/rough area (12%).

Figure 22: Why residents feel unsafe after dark (All responses)

Unweighted base 201: Those who feel unsafe in their local area after dark Mentions of 5% or more

5%

9%

9%

11%

14%

20%

25%

29%

Burglaries

Poor street lighting

Type of people around

Lack of police presence

Gangs of youths hanging around

Drunken behaviour

General level of crime

Drug users/drug dealers

Community Safety

49

8.2 Anti-social behaviour

Residents were asked how much of a problem they believe a range of anti-social

behaviour issues to be. The biggest perceived anti-social behaviour issue is rubbish

or litter lying around with over a half of residents (51%) stating that this is either a very

big problem or a fairly big problem. Poor rubbish/recycling services and lack of street

cleanliness were some of the main reasons given by residents for disagreeing that the

Council provides value for money and was also the top area that residents said the

Council should focus on next year. The next biggest perceived issue (and perhaps

linked to the rubbish and litter lying around) was gangs hanging around the streets with

just over two fifths of residents (41%) stating this as a problem. This was closely

followed by people using or dealing drugs (38%). These were also the issues most

commonly perceived as a very big problem.

Close to two thirds of residents (65%) felt that at least one of the anti-social behaviour

issues were either a very big problem or a fairly big problem.

Figure 23: Anti-social behaviour issues (All responses)


26

21

21

17

13

7

25

20

17

19

18

11

31

36

33

39

38

40

17

22

21

25

30

42

1

8

1

2

1

Rubbish or litter lying around

Groups hanging around the streets

People using or dealing drugs

People being drunk or rowdy in public places

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles

Noisy neighbours or loud parties

A very big problem (%) A fairly big problem (%) Not a very big problem (%)

Not a problem at all (%) Don't know/No opinion (%)


50

All anti-social behaviour issues have become more of a perceived problem since 2016

with all significantly increasing with the exception of people being drunk or rowdy in

public places, which has increased but not significantly.

Table 20: Anti-social behaviour issues (very big problem/fairly big problem) (All responses)

2018 2016 +/- change from 2016

Rubbish or litter lying around 51% 42% +9%

Groups hanging around the streets 41% 34% +7%

People using or dealing drugs 38% 30% +8%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 35% 32% +3%

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property on vehicles

30% 13% +17%

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 17% 11% +6%

Community Safety

51

Looking at the top 3 perceived anti-social behaviour issues by area shows across all

areas rubbish or litter lying around is the biggest issue, in particular for Central

Hounslow where this being a problem is significantly higher than the other areas. In

fact all anti-social behaviour issues are a greater problem in Central Hounslow with all

issues being significantly higher in this area than across the other areas of Hounslow.

Table 21: Anti-social behaviour issues (very big problem/fairly big problem) – by Area Forum

Bedfont Feltham

Hanworth

Central Hounslow



Rubbish or litter lying around 48% (1) 71% (1) 36% (1) 50% (1) 44% (1)

Groups hanging around the streets 35% (2) 61% 25% (2) 40% 37% (2)

People using or dealing drugs 29% (3) 66% (2) 18% 43% (2) 26% (3)

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 28% 64% (3) 10% 42% (3) 25%

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles 26% 48% 19% (3) 29% 26% (3)

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 14% 27% 4% 18% 19%


52

Effective (very/fairly)

62%

60%

8.3 Addressing crime and anti-social behaviour

Linking the views on community safety back to the public bodies who have

responsibilities in these areas, all residents were asked to consider how effective they

think the Council is at working with the police to address crime and anti-social

behaviour in their local area. Over three fifths of residents (62%) feel that the Council

is effectively working with the police, which is similar to the levels that felt this in the

2016 survey, with just over one in seven (15%) disagreeing. However, it is notable that

13% gave a neutral opinion and a further 10% answered don’t know suggesting that

there may be some scope to improve public awareness of the Council’s work on the

issue of anti-social behaviour.

Figure 24: Council effectiveness on working with the police to address crime and anti-social behaviour (All responses)


By area forum residents in Isleworth & Brentford were the most likely to feel the council

were effective on working with the police to address crime and anti-social behaviour

(70%) whereas residents in Heston & Cranford were the least likely (51%). However,

residents in Heston & Cranford were significantly more likely to say neither or don’t

know (34%) as opposed to stating the council are ineffective suggesting a need to

improve public awareness in particular in this area of the Council’s work on the issue

of anti-social behaviour.

12

8

50

52

13

17

9

12

5

4

10

6

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

Very effective (%) Fairly effective (%)

Neither effective nor ineffective (%) Fairly ineffective (%)

Very ineffective (%) Don't know (%)

Community Safety

53

Table 22: Council effectiveness on working with the police to address crime and anti-social behaviour (All responses) – by Area Forum

Area Forum Effective Neither Ineffective Don’t know

Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth (312) 59% 20% 16% 5%

Central Hounslow (250) 64% 12% 19% 6%

Chiswick (190) 69% 9% 12% 11%

Heston & Cranford (253) 51% 13% 15% 21%

Isleworth & Brentford (251) 70% 9% 12% 10%

Interestingly younger residents were also more likely to feel the council works

effectively with the police to deal with the issue of ASB with 74% of residents aged 18

to 24 stating effective (63% for those aged 25 to 44, 62% aged 45 to 54, 53% aged 55

to 64 and 59% for those aged 65+). However, those aged 18 to 24 were not less likely

to feel that ASB issues were a problem in their local area except for rubbish or litter

lying around with 37% of 18 to 24 year olds stating this was a problem which as

mentioned previously was the biggest ASB problem overall.


54

Agree

88%

87%

9 Respect and consideration

9.1 Getting on well together

To provide a measure of community cohesion within Hounslow all residents were

asked to what extent they agree or disagree that their local area is a place where

people from different backgrounds get on well together. By getting on well together

residents were advised this meant treating each other with respect.

Overall, close to nine in ten residents (88%) agree that their local area is a place

where people from different backgrounds get on together including nearly three in ten

(29%) who give the most positive response of very satisfied. Only 3% disagree that

this is the case. This is consistent with the levels of agreement seen in 2016.

Figure 25: Level of agreement that people from different backgrounds get on well together in the local area (All responses)


Looking at this by area shows that residents in Heston & Cranford are most likely to

agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area

and those residents in Bedfont, Feltham & Hanworth the least likely to agree. This is

due to the level of respondents stating they neither agree nor disagree rather than the

levels of residents disagreeing.

29

28

59

59

7

8

2

4

1

1

2 2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

Definitely agree (%) Tend to agree (%)


Definitely disagree (%) Don't know (%)

Respect and consideration

55

Agree

71%

59%

Table 23: Level of agreement that people from different backgrounds get on well together in the local area – by Area Forum

Area Forum Agree Neither Disagree



Chiswick (190) 91% 4% 1%



9.2 Pulling together to improve the local area

As local authority budgets become ever tighter, the social capital within communities is

becoming ever more important. It is likely that services traditionally delivered by

Councils will require new models of delivery with an enhanced role for residents, who

may be required to have more direct roles and responsibilities for certain services.

To measure current perceptions of the role residents currently play in their local area

all were asked to what extent they agree or disagree that people in their local area pull

together to improve the local area.

Just over seven in ten residents (71%) agree that people pull together to improve the

local area which is a significant increase from the 59% who agreed in 2016. Only 10%

disagree (20% in 2016) and a further 14% gave the neutral response of neither agree

nor disagree, which may be indicative of current efforts of residents in making local

improvements not being obviously attributable to residents.

Figure 26: Level of agreement that people pull together to improve the local area (All responses)


18

10

53

49

14

17

5

17

5

3

5

5

2018 (1256)

2016 (1207)

Definitely agree (%) Tend to agree (%)


Definitely disagree (%) Don't know (%)


56

Although residents from Heston & Cranford were most likely to agree that people from

different backgrounds get on well together they are the least likely to agree that people

pull together to improve their local area (63%) with 17% of residents disagreeing with

this. Residents in Chiswick are the most likely to agree that people pull together to

improve their local area (78%).

Table 24: Level of agreement that people pull together to improve the local area – by Area Forum

Area Forum Agree Neither Disagree



Chiswick (190) 78% 13% 4%



9.3 Unpaid help

To provide an indication of how much voluntary activity currently takes place within the

borough all residents were asked to indicate over the last year how many hours a

month they had given in unpaid help to any group(s), club(s) or organisation(s).

Residents were asked to only include work that is unpaid and not for their family and to

exclude giving money. The most common response to this question was that

residents have not given any unpaid help at all over the last twelve months to any

groups, clubs or organisations. This was the answer given by 83% of residents which

was consistent with 2016. Therefore less than a fifth of residents (17%) said they had

given unpaid help over the last year compared with 14% in 2016. Although this is a

significant increase this is due to those stating they did not know in the 2016 survey

rather than a decrease in the number stating they have not given any unpaid help.

Table 25: Average number of hours given to unpaid help over the last year6

2018 2016

< 5 hours 8% 7%

> 5 hours < 10 hours 5% 3%

> 10 hours < 20 hours 2% 2%

> 20 hours 1% 2%

None 83% 84%

Don't know 0% 2%

Summary: Any unpaid help 17% 14%

BASE (Unweighted) 1256 1207

6 +/- 1% ‘rounding’ differences appear here due to scales being added to calculate proportions of respondents

Appendix 1: Sample profile

57


The table below shows the composition of the survey sample prior to the application of

weights.

Count %

Gender Male 629 50%

Female 627 50%

Age 18-24 121 10%

25-34 254 20%

35-44 309 25%

45-54 216 17%

55-64 162 13%

65+ 193 15%

Refused 1 <0.5%

Ethnicity White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 507 40%

White: Irish 10 1%

White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller 0 0%

White: Other White 168 13%

Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 5 <0.5%

Mixed: White and Black African 6 <0.5%

Mixed: White and Asian 6 <0.5%

Mixed: Other Mixed 17 1%

Asian: Indian 267 21%

Asian: Pakistani 70 6%

Asian: Bangladeshi 7 1%

Asian: Chinese 10 1%

Asian: Other Asian 68 5%

Black: African 53 4%

Black: Caribbean 21 2%

Black: Other Black 11 1%

Arab 27 2%

Any other ethnic group 0 0%

Refused 3 <0.5%


58

Count %

Disability Yes 98 8%

No 1158 92%

Household composition One adult under 60 68 5%

One adult aged 60 or over 113 9%

Two adults both under 60 111 9%

Two adults, at least one 60 or over 126 10%

Three or more adults 16 or over 245 20%

1 parent family with child/ren at least one under 16 111 9%

2 parent family with child/ren at least one under 16 462 37%

Other 7 1%

Refused 13 1%

Economic activity Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per week) 524 42%

Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours per week) 177 14%

Self employed full-time 35 3%

Self employed part-time 17 1%

On a government supported training programme 0 0%

Full-time education at school, college or university 46 4%

Unemployed and available for work 33 3%

Permanently sick/disabled 40 3%

Wholly retired from work 221 18%

Looking after the home 144 11%

Doing something else 10 1%

Refused 9 1%

Time in area Less than 6 months 34 3%

6 months to 1 year 59 5%

Over 1 year and up to 2 years 94 7%

Over 2 years and up to 5 years 170 14%

Over 5 years and up to 10 years 178 14%

More than 10 years 720 57%

Don't know 1 <0.5%


59

Count % %

Religion Atheist 26 2%

Buddhist 16 1%

Christian 603 48%

Hindu 140 11%

Jewish 0 0%

Muslim 183 15%

Sikh 92 7%

Other 3 <0.5%

No religion 167 13%

Prefer not to say / Don't know 26 2%

Tenure Owner occupier 569 45%

Rented from Housing Association 74 6%

Renting from Hounslow Council/Hounslow Homes 244 19%

Rent from private landlord 343 27%

Shared ownership 7 1%

A residential home 5 <0.5%

Other 10 1%

Refused 4 <0.5%


60

Count %

Ward Bedfont 62 5%

Brentford 63 5%

Chiswick Homefields 63 5%

Chiswick Riverside 62 5%

Cranford 63 5%

Feltham North 63 5%

Feltham West 62 5%

Hanworth 63 5%

Hanworth Park 62 5%

Heston Central 63 5%

Heston East 61 5%

Heston West 66 5%

Hounslow Central 62 5%

Hounslow Heath 63 5%

Hounslow South 62 5%

Hounslow West 63 5%

Isleworth 62 5%

Osterley and Spring Grove 63 5%

Syon 63 5%

Turnham Green 65 5%

Constituency Brentford & Isleworth 628 50%

Feltham & Heston 628 50%

Mosaic Group B Prestige Positions 14 1%

C City Prosperity 211 17%

D Domestic Success 58 5%

F Senior Security 14 1%

H Aspiring Homemakers 31 2%

I Urban Cohesion 457 36%

J Rental Hubs 174 14%

M Family Basics 48 4%

N Vintage Value 19 2%

O Municipal Challenge 127 10%

U Unclassified 103 8%

/Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire

61

Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74


75


76

Appendix 3 : List of tables and figures

77


Table of Figures

Figure 1: Satisfaction with local area as a place to live (All responses) ................................ 7

Figure 2: Three words used to describe local area as a place to live (All responses) ............ 9

Figure 3: Satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things (All responses) .............. 10

Figure 4: Agreement on whether Hounslow Council provides value for money (All responses)

........................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – General

performance (All responses) .............................................................................................. 17

Figure 6: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Listening

and communicating performance (All responses) ............................................................... 19

Figure 7: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Making the

local area a better place to live and work (All responses) .................................................... 21

Figure 8: Services used in the last 12 months (All responses) ............................................ 22

Figure 9: Rating of local services – Users vs Overall (Excellent/very good/good) ................ 25

Figure 10: How well informed do residents feel about Hounslow Council (All responses) .. 27

Figure 11: How residents obtain information about the Council (All responses) .................. 29

Figure 12: Residents internet access (All responses) .......................................................... 31

Figure 13: Can name MP that represents constituency (All responses) .............................. 32

Figure 14: Can name elected Councillor for area (All responses) ........................................ 33

Figure 15: Can name Council leader (All responses) .......................................................... 34

Figure 16: Top 3 areas the Council should focus more on in the next year (All responses) . 36

Figure 17: Support for Heathrow Airport’s proposed third runway (All responses) ............... 40

Figure 18: Council’s reaction to the UK Parliament’s decision to support Heathrow Airport’s

proposed third runway (All responses) ................................................................................ 42

Figure 19: Opinions on Council Tax (All responses) ............................................................ 44

Figure 20: Perceptions of safety during the day (All responses) .......................................... 45

Figure 21: Perceptions of safety after dark (All responses) ................................................. 46

Figure 22: Why residents feel unsafe after dark (All responses) .......................................... 48

Figure 23: Anti-social behaviour issues (All responses) ...................................................... 49


78

Figure 24: Council effectiveness on working with the police to address crime and anti-social

behaviour (All responses) ................................................................................................... 52

Figure 25: Level of agreement that people from different backgrounds get on well together in

the local area (All responses) .............................................................................................. 54

Figure 26: Level of agreement that people pull together to improve the local area (All

responses) .......................................................................................................................... 55

Table of Tables

Table 1: Satisfaction with local area as a place to live – by Area Forum................................ 8

Table 2: Satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things – by Area Forum ............ 11

Table 3: Agreement on whether Hounslow Council provides value for money – by Area

Forum ................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 4: Key drivers of satisfaction with the way Hounslow Council runs things .................. 14

Table 5: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – General

performance (A great deal/to some extent) (All responses) ................................................. 18

Table 6: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Listening

and communicating performance (A great deal/to some extent) (All responses) ................. 20

Table 7: Extent to which residents feel statements apply to Hounslow Council – Making the

local area a better place to live and work (A great deal/to some extent) (All responses) ..... 21

Table 8: Rating of local services (All responses) ................................................................. 24

Table 9: Rating of local services (Excellent/very good/good) (All responses) ...................... 26

Table 10: How well informed do residents feel about Hounslow Council – by Area Forum .. 28

Table 11: How residents obtain information about the Council – by Area Forum ................ 30

Table 12: Can name elected Councillor for area - by Area Forum ....................................... 34

Table 13: Can name Council leader - by Area Forum.......................................................... 35

Table 14: Council priorities for residents compared to 2016 survey (All responses) ............ 37

Table 15: Council priorities for residents (All responses by Area Forum) ............................. 39

Table 16: Support for Heathrow Airport’s proposed third runway – by Area Forum ............. 41

Table 17: Council’s reaction to the UK Parliament’s decision to support Heathrow Airport’s

proposed third runway – by Area Forum ............................................................................. 42

Table 18: Opinions on Council Tax – by Area Forum .......................................................... 44

Table 19: Perceptions of safety during day and after dark – by Area Forum ....................... 47

Table 20: Anti-social behaviour issues (very big problem/fairly big problem) (All responses)

........................................................................................................................................... 50


79

Table 21: Anti-social behaviour issues (very big problem/fairly big problem) – by Area Forum

........................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 22: Council effectiveness on working with the police to address crime and anti-social

behaviour (All responses) – by Area Forum ........................................................................ 53

Table 23: Level of agreement that people from different backgrounds get on well together in

the local area – by Area Forum ........................................................................................... 55

Table 24: Level of agreement that people pull together to improve the local area – by Area

Forum ................................................................................................................................. 56

Table 25: Average number of hours given to unpaid help over the last year ....................... 56


80

Appendix 4: Statement of Terms

Compliance with International Standards

BMG complies with the International Standard for Quality Management Systems

requirements (ISO 9001:2015) and the International Standard for Market, opinion and social

research service requirements (ISO 20252:2012) and The International Standard for

Information Security Management (ISO 27001:2013).

Interpretation and publication of results

The interpretation of the results as reported in this document pertain to the research problem

and are supported by the empirical findings of this research project and, where applicable,

by other data. These interpretations and recommendations are based on empirical findings

and are distinguishable from personal views and opinions.

BMG will not publish any part of these results without the written and informed consent of the

client.

Ethical practice

BMG promotes ethical practice in research: We conduct our work responsibly and in light of

the legal and moral codes of society.

We have a responsibility to maintain high scientific standards in the methods employed in

the collection and dissemination of data, in the impartial assessment and dissemination of

findings and in the maintenance of standards commensurate with professional integrity.

We recognise we have a duty of care to all those undertaking and participating in research

and strive to protect subjects from undue harm arising as a consequence of their

participation in research. This requires that subjects’ participation should be as fully informed

as possible and no group should be disadvantaged by routinely being excluded from

consideration. All adequate steps shall be taken by both agency and client to ensure that the

identity of each respondent participating in the research is protected.

With more than 25 years’ experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy.

BMG serves both the public and the private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance.

Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of the most up to date technologies and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.

Download - Residents Survey 2018 - London Borough of Hounslow · 2019-02-04 · possible. In addition to this the report also looks to make comparisons to the Local Government Association (LGA)

Top Related