Results report 2012 - London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Residents’ Survey 

October 2012

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Residents’ Survey October 2012 

Contents 

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3 

Data .................................................................................................................... 3 

Methodology...................................................................................................... 3 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 4 

1. Rating the Council......................................................................................... 7 

2. Satisfaction with the area........................................................................... 10 

3. Service satisfaction and priorities............................................................. 19 

4. Communications and Engagement ........................................................... 25 

5. Managing the Council’s Budget................................................................. 37 

Statistical Reliability ....................................................................................... 39 

2


Introduction 

In September/October 2012 the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames commissioned an 

independent research company to carry out a telephone survey on their behalf. The aims of this survey 

were to gather the views of borough residents on a number of issues, including satisfaction with the 

Council and its services, the local area, crime and community. This information helps the Council to 

understand the views and priorities of local residents and will be taken into account when decisions are 

made about Council plans and services. 

It is intended that the survey will be repeated on an annual basis so that the Council can track 

residents’ views over time and ensure that they continue to be taken into account. 

Data 

Results in this report are based on telephone interviews with 1,400 Richmond borough residents aged 

16 and over and interviewed between 27 th September and 16 th October 2012. 

Where appropriate, the results of the residents’ survey are compared to data from the following 

sources; 

• All in One Survey: 13,585 responses of London Borough of Richmond upon Thames households, 

between 8 th November – 10 th December 2010. 

• LGA Data: Telephone survey of 1,006 GB adults aged 18+, between 31 st August and 2 nd 

September 2012 

• Ipsos MediaCT Tech Tracker Quarterly Release Q2 2012: 1,000 interviews GB adults aged 15+ 

Findings show resident perceptions which may be different to actual service performance. 

Methodology 

Interviews were conducted using a Random Digital Dialing (RDD) sampling approach, which involves 

the use of computers to randomly generate the last few digits of known telephone numbers covering 

the area (provided from the telephone exchange). The use of this method ensures that everyone with a 

phone line in the borough has a fair and equal chance to take part in the survey. Quotas were set to 

ensure that the population balance in the borough was accurately reflected – these quotas were based 

on 2011 census data where available, and set by age, gender, working status and population size of 

each village area. 

In each village area, a minimum number of interviews were set in relation to the population size.The 

lowest sample was in Strawberry Hill, where 44 interviews were achieved, compared to the highest in 

Teddington where 168 interviews were achieved. The weighted data ensures the figures are reliable, 

and more information is available in the appendices. 

3


The RDD method ensures that calls are confidential as no personal information such as name or 

address of respondents is known by the interviewer or by the Council. By law RDD numbers can 

include ex-directory and TPS (Telephone Preference Service) registered numbers as the calls are for 

research purposes and not marketing calls. To allay any concerns that residents may have that the 

calls were genuine the Council website carried an announcement about the survey, and interviewers 

offered any concerned respondents the option of a callback from the Community Engagement Team at 

the Council. 

Executive Summary 

Rating the Council 

Richmond borough residents rate the Council highly, especially when the survey results are compared 

with the national picture. Three quarters (76%) of respondents say they are satisfied with the way the 

Council runs things - this figure is higher than the national average of 72%. Three quarters (73%) of 

respondents say they trust the Council - this is 12% higher than the national average of 61%. Almost 

half (48%) believe the Council provides good value for money (46% nationally). 

Overall figures for how well informed Richmond Council keeps residents about the services and 

benefits it provides are lower than the national average – 57% compared to 66% nationally. Further 

breakdown of these figures by village show that residents in Strawberry Hill feel the most informed 

(68%) and those in Hampton Wick feel the least informed (49%). 

Satisfaction with the area 

Over nine in ten (93%) of residents say they are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. This is 

in line with the results of the All in One survey 2010 - 92% of respondents to that survey agreed that 

their local area was a good place to live. Both scores are significantly higher than the national average 

of 84%. 

Three quarters (76%) of residents agree that the local area is a place where people from different 

backgrounds get on well together, and this figure rises to over 80% in Hampton Wick, Kew, Strawberry 

Hill, Twickenham and Whitton. 

Residents report a high level of satisfaction with local high streets in the Richmond borough. Nearly 

four in five (78%) say they are satisfied with their local high street overall and nearly nine in ten (88%) 

say they are satisfied with the safety of the area. 

Two-thirds (67%) of residents feel the police and other local public services are successfully dealing 

with crime and anti-social behaviour, with 6% of residents stating they have been a victim of crime in 

the last month. 

4


Service satisfaction and priorities 

Nine in ten (90%) users of parks, open spaces and play areas say they are satisfied with these 

services. Parks are an important asset for the borough and a priority for residents - in the 2010 All in 

One survey 73% of residents mentioned parks and open spaces as one of the three most important 

factors in making their area a good place to live. 

There is a high level of satisfaction amongst residents for many of the services they receive - refuse 

collection, primary schools, public transport and recycling services all receive satisfaction ratings of 

over 80% from service users. Residents in Strawberry Hill, Kew and Richmond consistently record 

higher service satisfaction scores than residents in other villages. 

The most common issue cited by residents as a problem in the area is congestion - half (52%) of 

residents agree congestion is a problem, rising to 74% in East Sheen and 73% in Mortlake. This in line 

with results from the 2010 All in One survey, where 34% of respondents mentioned traffic/levels of 

congestion as the top issue they thought needed improving in the local area. 

Parking services and roads and pavements maintenance are the services with which respondents are 

the least satisfied. 24% of respondents think that road and pavement maintenance are the most 

important services to improve in the next 12 months and 20% believe that parking services need 

improving the most. These results reflect the findings of the All in One and reinforce the Council’s 

decisions to introduce fairer parking charges for residents and the new annual Community Roads and 

Pavement Fund. 

Communications and engagement 

Two thirds (68%) of residents agree that the Council acts on the concerns of local residents – this is 

6% higher than the national average (62%). 40% feel that the Council takes into account residents’ 

views and 31% feel they can influence the decisions that the Council makes. This is a 12% increase on 

the response to the same question in the All in One survey, although due to the methodological 

differences between a postal and telephone survey, some level of difference should be expected. 

One third (34%) of residents say they have contacted the Council in the last month. 64% of those say 

they were satisfied with the way the Council handled their enquiry, while 61% say they were satisfied 

with the final outcome. 

Almost half of residents say they have seen the council website (47%) , nearly one quarter (23%) have 

seen a MyVillage newsletter and two thirds have seen the Richmond and Twickenham Times in the 

last six months. Those who have seen any of these communications channels are more likely to agree 

that they feel informed about the services and benefits the council provides. 

Richmond residents are community-minded, with almost a third (30%) saying they spend time doing 

something to help improve their community or neighbourhood, while two thirds (66%) say they are 

interested in receiving more information to help them do more to help improve their community or 

neighbourhood. 

5


Setting the Council’s budget 

Three quarters (74%) of respondents agree that the Council should freeze council tax as a means of 

managing its budget during the current difficult economic times. Opinion is split on whether the Council 

should increase charging for some services to help cover costs (36% agree vs 35% who disagree) or 

reduce spending by reducing some services (32% agree vs. 35% who disagree). 

6


1. Rating the Council 

Richmond borough residents rate the Council highly, especially when the survey results are compared 

with those of other Councils nationally. Over three quarters (76%) of respondents say they are satisfied 

with the way the Council runs things - this figure is higher than the national average of 72%. Almost 

three quarters (73%) of residents say they trust the Council - this is 12% higher than the national 

average of 61%. Nearly half (48%) believe the Council provides good value for money (46% 

nationally). 

Overall figures for how well informed Richmond Council keeps residents about the services and 

benefits it provides are lower than the national average – 57% compared to 66% nationally. This area 

in particular is covered in Chapter 3 of this report. 

Figure 1.1: Rating the Council compared to the national average 

Richmond 

National Average 

Satisfaction with council 

76% 

72% 

Trust council 

73% 

61% 

Informed about services and benefits 

57% 

66% 

Value for money 

48% 

46% 

Question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Richmond Council runs 

things?/To what extent do you agree or disagree Richmond Council provides good value for 

money?/How much do you trust Richmond Council?/Overall how well informed do you think Richmond 

Council keeps residents about the services and benefits it provides? 

Source: Richmond Residents’ Survey 2012 compared with LGA data 

7


Strawberry Hill and Whitton village areas had the highest percentage of respondents satisfied with the 

way the Council runs things (82% and 83% respectively). It is worth nothing though that even the 

lowest satisfaction score recorded in a village is comparable with the national average (70% in 

Hampton Hill compared to 72% nationally). Similarly Hampton Hill has the lowest percentage of 

respondents who say they trust the Council, at 64%, but this figure is still above the national average of 

61%. 

Table 1.2: Rating the Council by village 

Average 

Villages with highest 

perception scores 

Villages with the lowest 

perception scores 

Satisfaction with 

the council 

77% Whitton 

(83%) 

Strawberry 

Hill (82%) 

Hampton Hill 

(70%) 

Barnes 

(72%) 

Trust the council 73% Strawberry 

Hill (85%) 


(79%) 

Hampton Hill 

(64%) 

Twickenham 

(68%) 

Value for money 48% Strawberry 

Hill (61%) 

Informed about 

services and 

benefits 

57% Strawberry 

Hill (68%) 

Kew (57%) 

Whitton 

(66%) 

Hampton Hill 

& Hampton 

Wick (41%) 

Hampton Wick 

(49%) 

East Sheen 

(39%) 

St. Margarets 

(51%) 

8


Table 1.3: Rating the Council by demographics 

Figures highlighted in yellow indicate statistically significant differences. 

Satisfaction with 

the council % 

Good value 

for money % 

Trust the 

council 

% 

Feel informed about 

services and benefits 

% 

Average 77% 48% 74% 57% 

Male 77% 50% 75% 60%* 

Female 76% 46% 73% 54% 

16-29 81% 47% 79% 51% 

30-49 77% 47% 73% 56% 

50-64 71% 42% 71% 59% 

65+ 77% 58%* 75% 63%* 

White 76% 49%* 74% 58%* 

BME 77% 39% 70% 49% 

Work FT 77% 48% 74% 55% 

Not working FT 75% 48% 74% 59% 

Lived 0-12 months 71% 49% 64% 45% 

in Richmond 

Lived 1-5 years in 87%* 52% 81%* 58% 


Lived 6+ years in 74% 47% 73% 57% 


Barnes 72% 45% 74% 59% 

East Sheen 80% 39% 77% 56% 

Ham & Petersham 74% 44% 69% 52% 

Hampton 74% 43% 71% 54% 

Hampton Hill 70% 41% 64% 57% 

Hampton Wick 78% 41% 72% 49% 

Kew 78% 57%* 76% 64% 

Mortlake 80% 50% 75% 61% 

Richmond 78% 48% 79%* 58% 

St Margarets 74% 46% 72% 51% 

Strawberry Hill 82% 61% 85%* 68% 

Teddington 75% 49% 76% 53% 

Twickenham 74% 52% 68% 54% 

Whitton 83%* 50% 74% 66%* 

9


2. Satisfaction with the area 

2.1: Community 

Over nine in ten (93%) of residents say they are satisfied with their local area. This is in line with the 

2010 All in One survey result where 92% of residents said their local area was a good place to live. 

Both scores are higher than the average rating given across the UK (84%). 

Three quarters (76%) agree that the local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get 

on well together, while only 2% disagree. 

Figure 2.1.1: Satisfaction with area as a place to live and how well people get on together 

Q. Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are 

you with your local area as a place to live? 

Q. To what extent do you agree or disagree 

that your local area is a place where people 

from different backgrounds get on well 

together? 

Question: Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?/ To what 

extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from different 

backgrounds get on well together? 

Source: Richmond Residents’ Survey 2012 

10


Table 2.1.2: Satisfaction with area as a place to live and and how well people get on together by 

demographics 


Satisfied with local area as 

a place to live % 

People from different backgrounds 

get on well together % 

Average 93% 76% 

Male 93% 78% 

Female 93% 75% 

16-29 91% 74% 

30-49 93% 77% 

50-64 93% 79% 

65+ 94% 75% 

White 93% 77% 

BME 90% 77% 

Working FT 94% 77% 

Not working FT 92% 76% 

Lived for 0-12 months in 

96% 69% 


Lived for 1-5 years in 

96%* 74% 


Lived for 6+ years in 

92% 77% 


Barnes 93% 70% 

East Sheen 94% 71% 

Ham & Petersham 94% 70% 

Hampton 92% 78% 

Hampton Hill 100%* 74% 

Hampton Wick 86% 81% 

Kew 97%* 81%* 

Mortlake 93% 77% 

Richmond 94% 78% 

St Margarets 88% 68% 

Strawberry Hill 96% 85%* 

Teddington 97%* 75% 

Twickenham 90% 80%* 

Whitton 88% 85%* 

11


2.2: Satisfaction with local high street 

Most residents say they are satisfied with their local high street. Nearly nine in ten (88%) say they are 

satisfied with the safety of the area and nearly four in five (78%) say they are satisfied with their local 

high street overall. 

Figure 2.2.1: Rating local high streets 

Th e safety of the area 

88% 

You r local high street overall 

78% 

Th e appearance of the high street 

77% 

Th e range of shops available 

69% 

Question: Thinking about your local high street, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the 

following? (% satisfied shown) 


Overall resident satisfaction with the local high street is 78%, but this figure rises to 90% in Hampton 

Hill, 87% in East Sheen and 86% in Kew. Four in five (77%) of residents are satisfied with the 

appearance of their high street, rising to 90% in Richmond, 87% in Kew and 86% in Teddington. 

Residents who are the least satisfied with the appearance of their high street are those living in 

Twickenham (67%) and St Margarets (66%). 

Seven in ten (69%) of residents say they are satisfied with the range of shops available in their local 

high street, rising to 81% of residents in Richmond, 76% in Kew and 74% in Teddington. The villages 

where residents are least satisfied with the range of shops are Hampton Wick (61%) and Twickenham 

(60%). 

12


Table 2.2.2: Satisfaction with local high street by demographics 


Satisfied with 

local high 

street % 

Satisfied with Satisfied with the 

appearance of high range of shops 

street % 

available % 

Satisfied with 

the safety of 

the area % 

Average 78% 77% 69% 88% 

Male 77% 78% 69% 88% 

Female 78% 77% 69% 87% 

16-29 78% 80% 70% 87% 

30-49 79% 77% 68% 89% 

50-64 79% 78% 70% 88% 

65+ 73% 75% 67% 84% 

White 78% 77% 68% 88% 

BME 78% 78% 73% 84% 

Working FT 78% 78% 70% 90%* 

Not working FT 77% 77% 67% 85% 

Lived for 0-12 96%* 80% 79% 98%* 

Lived for 1-5 79% 80% 70% 90% 

Lived for 6+ years 77% 77% 68% 87% 

Barnes 71% 74% 71%* 89% 

East Sheen 87%* 77% 66% 91%* 

Ham & Petersham 81%* 89%* 66% 80% 

Hampton 74% 72% 67% 83% 

Hampton Hill 90%* 70% 73% 85% 

Hampton Wick 83%* 78% 61% 90% 

Kew 86%* 87%* 76%* 91%* 

Mortlake 85%* 70% 69% 92%* 

Richmond 84%* 90%* 81%* 92%* 

St Margarets 70% 66% 63% 88% 

Strawberry Hill 79% 73% 65% 90% 

Teddington 81%* 86%* 74%* 91%* 

Twickenham 67% 67% 60% 82% 

Whitton 74% 73% 57% 85% 

13


2.3: Perceptions of changes to high streets over time 

Overall, most residents (57%) say they feel their local high street has stayed the same over the last 12 

months. A quarter (24%) say they feel their local high street has got better, rising to 38% in Whitton, 

33% in St Margarets and 31% in Strawberry Hill. 16% of residents perceive that their high street has 

got worse, rising to 23% in Mortlake and Twickenham and 24% in Barnes,. 

Figure 2.3.1 Resident perception of high street changes over time 

Better 

24% 

Stayed the same 

57% 

Worse 

16% 

Don't know 

3% 

Question: Overall, do you perceive that your local high street has become a better or worse place to 

visit in the last 12 months, or has it stayed the same? 


14


Table 2.3.2: Perceptions of changes to high streets over time by demographics 


Perceive their high Perceive the high street Perceived their high 

street has got better to have stayed the street has got worse 

same 

Average 24% 57% 16% 

Male 24% 58% 17% 

Female 24% 57% 16% 

16-29 31%* 52% 11% 

30-49 23% 58% 17%* 

50-64 21% 58% 18%* 

65+ 22% 60% 14% 

White 23% 58% 16% 

BME 28% 55% 14% 

Working FT 22% 59% 17% 

Not working FT 26% 55% 15% 

Lived for 0-12 11% 56% 5% 

months in Richmond 

Lived for 1-5 years in 18% 65% 15%* 


Lived for 6+ years in 26%* 56% 17%* 


Barnes 21% 51% 24%* 

East Sheen 13% 61% 22%* 

Ham & Petersham 24% 58% 15% 

Hampton 22% 59% 14% 

Hampton Hill 28% 61% 9% 

Hampton Wick 13% 67% 17% 

Kew 26% 62%* 8% 

Mortlake 14% 61% 23%* 

Richmond 26%* 59% 15% 

St Margarets 33%* 50% 17% 

Strawberry Hill 31% 42% 22% 

Teddington 18% 73%* 9% 

Twickenham 23%* 50% 23%* 

Whitton 38%* 49% 13% 

15


2.4: Perceptions of anti-social behaviour 

The survey asked questions about six different aspects of anti-social behaviour and how much of a 

problem respondents perceived them to be in the local area. The issues perceived to be most 

problematic are rubbish and litter lying around (21%) and groups hanging around the street (17%). 

Figure 2.4.1: Anti-social behaviour issues – are they a problem in the local area? 

Rubbish and litter lying around 

21% 

Groups hanging around the street 

17% 

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 

16% 

Vandalism, graffiti, and other deliberate 

damage 

16% 

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 

16% 

People using or dealing drugs 

8% 

Question: Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you perceive each of the following 

are? 

Source: 1,400 Richmond residents, 16+ interviewed by telephone, 26 th September – 16 th October 2012 

16


The chart below shows the highest and lowest ratings across the London Borough of Richmond upon 

Thames for each of the six anti-social behaviour questions asked. 

Figure 2.4.2: Range of perceptions of anti-social behavior seen to be a problem in the local area 

Richmond Highest score in a village Lowest score in a village 

People using or dealing 

drugs 

Rubbish and litter lying 

around 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

Groups hanging around 

the street 

Noisy neighbours or loud 

parties 

Vandalism, graffiti and 

other deliberate damage 

People being drunk or 

rowdy in public places 

Question: Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you perceive each of the following 

are? 


The villages where anti-social behaviour issues are perceived to be more of a problem are: 

• Rubbish and litter lying around - 32% in St Margarets 

• Groups hanging around the street - 30% in Hampton Hill, 27% in Hampton, 25% in Whitton 

• Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property and vehicles - 23% in Ham and 

Petersham, 21% in East Sheen 

17


3. Service satisfaction and priorities 

3.1: Satisfaction with three key services 

84% of residents say they are satisfied with refuse collection; a figure which is in line with the national 

average of 83%. Similarly three quarters (75%) of local residents say they are satisfied with street 

cleaning compared to 74% of residents across the UK. Ratings of library services by all residents are 

slightly below the national average at 61%, although this figure rises to 79% amongst library users (see 

Figure 3.2.1). 

Figure 3.1.1: Satisfaction with three key services compared to the national average 

Scores are based on all residents 


National average 

Refuse collection 

84% 

83% 

Street cleaning 

75% 

74% 

Library services 

61% 

67% 

Question: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you overall with the following services in your local area? 

Source: Richmond Residents’ Survey 2012 compared to LGA data 

3.2: Satisfaction across a range of services 

For most services it is appropriate to look at satisfaction amongst those who say they use the service – 

this gives us a better picture of success than overall resident satisfaction with services. The following 

graph demonstrates user satisfaction across a range of services. 

19


Nine in ten (90%) users of parks, open spaces and play areas say they are satisfied with the service 

they receive. This is a significant result as the 2010 All in One survey showed that 73% of residents 

consider parks and open spaces to be one of the three most important factors in making their area a 

good place to live. 

Figure 3.2.1: Satisfaction amongst users 

Scores are based on service users where applicable and not all residents are service users. Starred 

services are those based on users of the service. 

Parks, open spaces and play areas* 


Primary schools* 

Public transport* 

Recycling services 

Library Services* 

Street Cleaning 

Entertainment, museums and arts* 

Secondary schools* 

Council run sports and fitness services* 

Services and support for young people* 

Services and support for older people* 

Social services* 

Road maintenance 

Pavement maintenance 

Parking services* 

90% 

84% 

84% 

83% 

81% 

79% 

75% 

71% 

67% 

66% 

65% 

57% 

56% 

47% 

46% 

40% 



As shown in the table below, those respondents who are most satisfied with each service are those 

who are users of the service. The biggest differences between user and non-user satisfaction are for 

libraries, sports and fitness services, provision of entertainment, museums and the arts and secondary 

schools. 

20


Table 3.2.2: Perceptions of service satisfaction amongst users and non-users 

How satisfied or dissatisfied, if at all, are you 

overall with the following services in your local 

area…? 

Parking services 


Average 

Satisfaction 

Non User 

Satisfaction 

Satisfied 36% 28% 40% 

Dissatisfied 31% 23% 34% 

User 

satisfaction 

Net Satisfied +5 points +4 points +6 points 





Social services for vulnerable 

adults and those with Dissatisfied 6% 4% 24% 

disabilities Net Satisfied +18 points +16 points +32 points 


Services and support for 

children and young people 


older people 

Council run sports and 

fitness services 

Provision of entertainment, 

museums and arts 

Parks, open spaces and play 

areas 

Primary schools 

Secondary schools 

Public transport 
























21


For some services used by children and young people there is a difference in satisfaction levels 

between parents and non-parents (of children under 19). 

Table 3.2.3: Service satisfaction amongst parents 

How satisfied or dissatisfied, if at all, are you 

overall with the following services in your local 

area…? 


children and young people 


Average 

Satisfaction 

Parent of a 

child under 

19 

Not a parent 

of a child 

under 19 











3.3: Service satisfaction by village 

The chart below shows the difference in satisfaction levels between the villages for a range of services. 

There is little variance for key services such as refuse collection and parks, open spaces and play 

areas. Residents in Strawberry Hill, Kew and Richmond consistently record higher service satisfaction 

scores than residents in other villages. In particular satisfaction amongst residents in Barnes, Hampton 

Hill and Hampton Wick tends to be lower than in other villages. 

84% of residents say they are satisfied with refuse collection, with residents in Mortlake the most 

satisfied (93%), followed by residents in Teddington (89%). Those who are least satisfied with refuse 

collection live in St Margarets and Whitton (both 79%) and Hampton Wick (74%). Similarly 81% of 

residents are satisfied with recycling services, but this figure rises to 92% in Mortlake and drops to 73% 

in Hampton Wick. 

22


Figure 3.3.1 Service satisfaction across villages 

Richmond Highest score in a village Lowest score in a village 

Parking services* 

Parks, open spaces and 

play areas* 

100% 

80% 


* Service users 



60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

Public transport* 



older people* 

Library services* 


young people and 

children* 

Council run sports and 

fitness services* 

Provision of 

entertainment, 

museums and arts* 




3.4: Priorities for service improvements 

When asked which services they considered the most important to improve in the next 12 months, 

respondents most often mentioned pavement and road maintenance (24% each), followed by parking 

services (20%). These results reflect the findings of the 2010 All in One survey and reinforce the 

Council’s decisions to introduce fairer parking charges for residents and the new annual Community 

Roads and Pavement Fund. 

Those services which are perceived to be less of a priority for improvement are again similar to the All 

in One results - only 3% mentioned libraries (5% in 2010) and 10% mentioned public transport (8% in 

2010). 

23


Figure 3.4.1: Services perceived as priorities for 

improvement 



Parking services 


Public transport 


Services and support for children and young people 



Social services 

Services and support for older people 

Parks, open spaces and play areas 

Council run sports and fitness services 


Provision of entertainment, museums and arts 


Traffic congestion 

Regeneration of area/high street 

Policing 

Planning/development 

Tree maintenance 

Aircraft noise/Heathrow 

Housing 

Cycle Paths 

Education/Schools 

Other 

None of these 

Don't know 

7% 

6% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

2% 3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

8% 

9% 

7% 

11% 

10% 

10% 

20% 

24% 

24% 

Question: Thinking about your local area, which services, if any, are the most important to improve in 

the next 12 months? 


3.5: Perceptions of congestion 

A separate question asked residents how much of a problem they felt congestion is in the London 

Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Half (52%) of residents say they think that congestion is a 

problem, and this figure rises to 74% in East Sheen and 73% in Mortlake. However, only 3% of 

respondents mentioned traffic/levels of congestion as a priority for improvement in the next 12 months. 

24


4. Communications and Engagement 

4.1 Customer Service 

Of the 34% of residents who say they have contacted the Council in the last three months, 64% say 

they are satisfied with the way the Council handled the enquiry, and 61% said they are satisfied with 

the final outcome of their enquiry. 

Figure 4.1.1: Satisfaction with customer contact amongst those who have contacted the 

Council 

34% contacted the 

council in last three 

months 

Satisfied with how the council handled 

your enquiry 

64% 

Satisfied with the final outcome of your 

enquiry 

61% 

Question: Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Council handled your enquiry?/the final 

outcome of your enquiry? 


25


Figure 4.1.2: How residents would prefer to contact the council 

The most popular method of contacting the Council is by telephone - 42% of residents say they would 

prefer to telephone the Council, and 33% would rather send an email. 

Telephone 

42% 

Send an email 

33% 

Via council website 

12% 

In person at a specific building or office 

Writing a letter 

6% 

5% 

Question: What is your preferred method of contacting the Council? 


26


4.2: Feeling informed 

Overall, the issue London Borough of Richmond upon Thames residents feel the most informed about 

is the services and benefits the Council provides but this figure is below the national average – 57% 

against an average of 66%. A third (33%) say they are informed about how to get involved in local 

decision making and nearly a fifth (19%) say they are informed about any proposed reductions to the 

Council’s budget. 

Figure 4.2.1: How well informed do residents feel the Council keeps them? 


National Poll 

The services and benefits it provides 

57% 

66% 

How to get involved in local decision making 

33% 

Their plans to deal with any proposed 

reductions to their budget 

19% 

Question: How well informed do you perceive London Borough of Richmond upon Thames keeps 

residents about... 


27


4.3: Media 

Almost half of residents (47%) say they have seen the Council website in the last six months. In the 

same period nearly a quarter (23%) have seen a MyVillage newsletter. Seven in ten (69%) of residents 

who say they have seen a newsletter say they feel informed about the services and benefits the 

Council provides (compared to 54% of those who have not seen a newsletter). 

Two thirds (66%) of respondents have seen the Richmond and Twickenham Times in the last six 

months. The proportion who say they feel informed about the services and benefits the Council 

provides is higher amongst those who have seen this publication - 60% compared to 51% who say 

they have not seen it. 

Figure 4.3.1: Exposure to local media channels in the last six months 

Richmond & Twickenham Times 

66% 

Council Website 

47% 

MyVillage newsletters 

23% 

Customer Account 

Other 

None of these 

Don't know 

11% 

8% 

16% 

1% 

Question: Which, if any, of the following produced by Richmond Council, or available locally such as 

local newspapers, have you personally seen in the last six months? 


The village areas where respondents are most likely to have seen a MyVillage newsletter are 

Strawberry Hill (29%), Ham & Petersham (28%) and Barnes and East Sheen (both 26%). 

28


Table 4.3.2: Perceptions of how well informed people feel by media sources seen 


Average 

Seen Richmond and 

Twickenham Times 

Not seen Richmond 

and Twickenham Times 

Seen council website 

Not seen council 

website 

Seen My Village news 

letters 

Not seen MyVillage 

news letters 

Seen customer account 

Not seen customer 

account 

Overall how well informed do you think London Borough of Richmond upon Thames keeps residents 

informed about… 

Services and benefits 57% 60%* 51% 61%* 54% 69%* 54% 61% 57% 

Not informed about services 

and benefits 

Get involved in decision 

making 

Not informed about how to get 

involved in decision making 

Plans to deal with proposed 

reductions to budget 

Not informed about plans to 

deal with proposed reductions 

to budget 

40% 38% 43% 37% 42% 30% 43%* 37% 40% 

33% 34% 30% 35% 31% 45%* 29% 40% 32% 

58% 58% 58% 59% 57% 49% 61% 52% 59% 

20% 21%* 17% 17% 22% 27%* 17% 21% 19% 

68% 68% 68% 73%* 63% 63% 69% 69% 68% 

29


4.4: Feeling informed and overall satisfaction 

There tends to be a correlation between feeling informed about the services and benefits the Council 

provides and overall satisfaction with the Council. The chart below displays these factors by village 

area, showing that the residents who feel the most informed and satisfied live in Strawberry Hill and 

Whitton. 

Figure 4.4.1: Satisfaction and feeling informed levels by village area 

Satisfaction 

85% 

83% 

Whitton 

Strawberry Hill 

81% 

Hampton Wick 

East Sheen Mortlake 

79% 


Kew 

77% 

Twickenham 

75% 

Teddington 

Ham and Petersham 

Hampton 

73% 

St Margarets 

Barnes 

71% 

Hampton Hill 

69% 

67% 

Informed 

65% 

45% 48% 51% 54% 57% 60% 63% 66% 69% 72% 

Question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Richmond Council runs things?/ 

Overall how well informed do you think Richmond Council keeps residents informed about the services 

and benefits it provides? 


30


4.5: Engagement 

Seven in ten (68%) of residents agree that the Council acts on the concerns of local residents. This is 

higher than the national average of 62%. 

Four in ten (40%) feel that the Council takes into account residents’ views and 31% feel they can 

influence the decisions that the Council makes. This is an improvement from the 19% who agreed in 

the All in One survey, though due to the methodological differences between a postal and telephone 

survey, some level of difference should be expected. 

Figure 4.5.1: Engagement levels compared to the national average 


National Average 

Council acts on concerns of local residents 

62% 

68% 

Council takes account of residents views 

#N/A 

40% 

I feel I can influence the decisions the council 

makes 

#N/A 

31% 

Question: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about Richmond 

Council? 


It is interesting to note that amongst those respondents who say they feel informed about how to get 

involved in decision making, 51% feel they can influence Council decisions - a rise of 20% on the 

Richmond average. 

31


Table 4.5.2: Perceptions of engagement by demographics 


Acts on concerns of 

local residents % 

Takes into account 

residents views % 

Can influence 

council decisions 

% 

Average 68% 40% 31% 

Male 70% 44%* 34%* 

Female 65% 36% 28% 

16-29 72%* 49%* 41%* 

30-49 64% 39% 30% 

50-64 68% 38% 27% 

65+ 61% 37% 29% 

White 68% 40% 29% 

BME 64% 41% 40%* 

Working FT 67% 41% 32% 

Not working FT 69% 39% 30% 

Lived for 0-12 

49% 37% 16% 

months in 


Lived for 1-5 years 67%* 41% 36%* 


Lived for 6+ years 69%* 40% 31%* 


Barnes 71%* 33% 26% 

East Sheen 70%* 38% 30% 

Ham & Petersham 58% 39% 35% 

Hampton 55% 42% 28% 

Hampton Hill 62% 32% 28% 

Hampton Wick 57% 39% 26% 

Kew 67% 48%* 31% 

Mortlake 62% 39% 33% 

Richmond 68%* 44%* 36% 

St Margarets 65% 39% 28% 

Strawberry Hill 75%* 54%* 47%* 

Teddington 69%* 39% 29% 

Twickenham 73%* 38% 32% 

Whitton 79%* 38% 33% 

32


4.6 Community 

Richmond residents are community-minded, with almost a third (30%) saying they currently give time to 

help improve their local community, while two thirds (66%) say they are interested in receiving 

information to help them do so. 

Figure 4.6.1: Time given to community and interest in doing more 

Q. How much time, if at all, do you personally 

spend doing something to help improve your 

community or neighbourhood? 

Q. And how interested, if at all, are you in 

receiving more information to help you do 

more to help improve your community or 

neighbourhood? 

A great deal 

6% 

Give time: 

30% 

Very interested 

21% 

Interested: 

66% 

A fair amount 

24% 

Fairly interested 

45% 

Not very much 

43% 

Not very interested 

20% 

Nothing at all 

26% 

Not at all interested 

13% 

Don’t know 

1% 

Don’t know 

2% 

Question: How much time, if at all, do you personally spend doing something to help improve your 

community or neighbourhood?/ And how interested, if at all, are you in receiving more information to 

help you do more to help improve your community or neighbourhood? 


The villages with the highest proportion of residents who currently offer time to improving their local 

community are Kew (39%) and Ham & Petersham (35%). Those respondents who would like to receive 

more information to help them do more are most likely to live in Strawberry Hill (80%), Hampton Wick 

(75%) and Mortlake (73%). 

33


Table 4.6.2: Time given to help local community by demographics 


Give time to local community 

% 

Interested in giving time 

% 

Average 30% 66% 

Male 28% 63% 

Female 31% 67% 

16-29 26% 53% 

30-49 29% 72% 

50-64 32% 66% 

65+ 32% 57% 

White 29% 64% 

BME 32% 73%* 

Working FT 29% 68%* 

Not working FT 30% 62% 

Lived for 0-12 months in Richmond 12% 64% 

Lived for 1-5 years in Richmond 26%* 76% 

Lived for 6+ years in Richmond 31%* 63% 

Barnes 28% 70%* 

East Sheen 24% 59% 

Ham & Petersham 35% 60% 

Hampton 33% 67% 

Hampton Hill 30% 60% 

Hampton Wick 27% 75% 

Kew 38%* 63% 

Mortlake 33% 73% 

Richmond 25% 59% 

St Margarets 32% 72%* 

Strawberry Hill 24% 80%* 

Teddington 31% 72%* 

Twickenham 29% 59% 

Whitton 26% 63% 

34


4.7: Internet use 

The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has a large proportion of residents who say they use 

the internet - 89% compared to a national average of 79%. 1 

Figure 4.7.1: Internet use and methods of internet access 

Use the internet 

89% 

Via laptop/computer 

Via smartphone 

Via an iPad 

35% 

48% 

96% 

Among 

internet 

users 

Other 

1% 

Question: How do you personally use the internet at home or elsewhere? 


Most respondents access the internet on a laptop or computer, but almost half (48%) use a 

smartphone and over a third (35%) say they use the internet through an iPad. 

The villages with the highest proportion of residents using smartphones to access the internet are 

Hampton Wick (58%), Mortlake (54%), Barnes (53%) and Teddington (53%), whereas Barnes (44%) 

and Teddington (40%) have the highest proportion of those using iPads. 

1 Ipsos MediaCT; Tech Tracker Quarterly Release Q2 2012; 1000 interviews GB adults aged 15+ 

35


Table 4.7.2: Reported internet use by age 


Internet 

User 

Access via 

laptop/computer 

Access via 

Smartphone 

Access via an 

iPad 

Average 89% 96% 48% 31% 

16-29 98%* 96%* 63%* 34%* 

30-49 98%* 95%* 59%* 45%* 

50-64 89%* 97%* 30%* 23%* 

65+ 57% 95% 10% 12% 

36


5. Managing the Council’s Budget 

Three quarters (74%) of residents agree that the Council should freeze council tax in order to manage 

its budget during the current difficult economic times. Opinion is split on whether the Council should 

increase charging for some services to help cover costs (36% agree vs 35% who disagree) or reduce 

spending by reducing some services (32% agree vs. 35% who disagree). 

Figure 5.1: Opinion on different approaches to managing the Council’s budget 

74% 

Freeze Council Tax 

13% 

9% 

Increasing charging for some services to 

help cover costs 

19% 

36% 

35% 

Agree 

Neutral 

Disagree 

Reduce spending by reducing some 

services 

24% 

32% 

35% 

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the following approach to managing the Council’s budget 

during the current difficult economic times? Freezing Council Tax/Reducing spending by reducing 

some services/Increasing charging for some services to help cover costs 


Interestingly those respondents who say they feel informed about plans to deal with the Council’s 

budget are less likely to agree with freezing council tax and more likely to agree with the other options, 

as the chart below shows. 

37


Table 5.2: Attitudes to budget options by how well informed residents feel 

Average Informed Not informed 

Do you agree or 

disagree with the 

following of the 

council’s 

approach to 

managing its 

budget during the 

current difficult 

economic times? 

How well informed do you think London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 

keeps residents about their plans to deal with any proposed reductions to their 

budget? 

Freeze Council 

Tax 

74% 69% 76% 

Increase charging 36% 46% 35% 

Reduce spending 32% 42% 30% 

38


Statistical Reliability 

There are a number of factors involved when considering the statistical reliability of the findings in this 

survey. The concept of statistical reliability is based on how confident we are that the sample of 

individuals we interviewed is representative of the general population (which in statistical terms is 

known as the Universe). We work within a confidence interval at the 95% level. This is to say that if we 

drew a hundred samples of the population Universe in the same way 95 would report a figure within 

our confidence interval. In most cases they would most likely report the figure given in the report. 

Therefore if we say the confidence interval is +/-3% (which it is for 1,400 interviews) at the 95% level 

we are saying that a finding of 50% is the most likely figure, but that there is a chance that the actual 

figure in the whole Universe is between 47% and 53%. The chances of being at these extremes are 

less than being 50%. 

Furthermore, statistical reliability tightens up if the figure recorded is away from the 50% mark. If the 

score was say 10% (or 90%) then the confidence interval on a sample of 1,400 reduces to +/-3%. 

The table below shows the confidence interval for a number of different sample sizes and figures 

recorded. 

Sample size 200 400 800 1,400 

10%/90% +/-4% +/-3% +/-2% +/-2% 

20%/80% +/-6% +/-4% +/-3% +/-2% 

30%/70% +/-6% +/-5% +/-3% +/-2% 

40%/60% +/-7% +/-5% +/-3% +/-3% 

50%/50% +/-7% +/-5% +/-4% +/-3% 

Therefore in practice quoted confidence intervals often simplify the theory. A sample size of 1,400 is 

quoted as being reliable to +/-3% but actually should be quoted as being +/-2% to +/-3% depending on 

the case. This is particularly important in considering the significance of differences between waves of 

a survey or among sub-groups (and smaller sample sizes). In our computer tables of detailed 

breakdowns of findings the underlying detailed formula is used to work out automatically if there is a 

significant difference on every finding – so we can read off where differences are occurring. 

39

Results report 2012 - London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?