ROUNDHAY ROAD HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS ...

Method Local Non-
Local
Total
Returns %
Properties – home/workplace
(Hand delivered)
57 4 62 16
Vehicles
(Hand delivered)
3 87 90 24
General (Libraries, public meetings,
call centre)
2 16 18 5
Buses
(Hand delivered to passenger)
6 45 51 13
Pedestrians (Hand delivered)
Website
11 4 15 4
(Unique hits were 750 though only 142
replied)
22 120 142 38
Totals 101 276 377 100
• The most commonly cited source of information for local respondents
was a leaflet to the home/workplace, and a roadside sign/poster in
shop.
• For non-local respondents the most common sources were a leaflet
received while driving and roadside sign/poster in shop, through which
the website has been used extensively.
3.8.2 A roadside sign advertising the consultation was used as an experimental
method. This sign can be seen in Appendix 4.
The sign directed the public to both the dedicated website and the Highway
call centre. As can be seen in the above table, the website was the most
commonly used response method.
3.8.3 The following broad conclusion can be drawn:
• A total response rate of 4.4% is lower than anticipated and that of
previous consultation exercises.
• A wide range of consultation methods were explored, more than we
have done with other Highway project consultations, and the majority of
returns came through the online questionnaire making up 38% of total
returns.
• This website www.leeds.gov.uk/roundhayrd was advertised on the
leaflets and using roadside signs. The roadside sign was an
experimental method and seemed to have achieved a good response.
• The age and gender of respondents were generally as expected and
inline with Census information.
• Responses from non-white ethnicities were lower than expected or
identified by Census information.
10