Three-quarters of respondents are in agreement with the proposed approaches to Clarence Pier; 35% ‘strongly agree’ (290 respondents) and 40% ‘agree’ (332 respondents).
13% of respondents disagree; 10% ‘disagree’ and 3% ‘disagree strongly’.
The following in-depth analysis has been undertaken in the interest of the council wanting to be thorough and transparent of the issues at hand.
The 12% of respondents who do not agree with the proposed approaches to Clarence Pier were asked which elements they disagree with. The ‘re-provision of Clarence Pier and Clarence Esplanade car parks with increased capacity and/or integrated with any redevelopment or within landscape‘ is the element met with most resistance; 69% of this cohort did not agree with it.
Just over a third of this cohort (35%) disagree with the consolidation of Clarence Pier as a premier leisure and recreation destination.
The remaining options were all selected by less than a fifth of respondents in this cohort.
The majority of objections to the re-provision of Clarence Pier and Clarence Esplanade car parks stem from concerns about cars being encouraged to the area. The need to improve public transport was also mentioned too.
The following table expands on the responses of the previous chart.
|wdt_ID||Proposed approach||Common themes|
|1||Re-provision of Clarence Pier and Clarence Esplanade car parks with increased capacity and/or integrated with any redevelopment or within landscape, subject to further assessment of city-wide parking capacity provision||Will encourage cars to the area. Need to improve public transport. Need parking. Accessibility issues.|
|2||Consolidate Clarence Pier as a premier leisure and recreation destination, including a wider mix of uses such as restaurants, bars, leisure, hotel, and residential||Unnecessary. Keep the fun fair and character of the area. Need improvement. Do not want residential building, this would cause traffic. Demolish the pier. Investors will not be interested.|
|3||Development in the area should promote walking and cycling, through designing and allocating maximum space for pedestrians||Accessibility issues. Need vehicle access. Need a balance between prioritising pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers. Need parking.|
|4||A redesigned Hovercraft terminal building to incorporate a wider range of uses and facilities||Unnecessary. Too expensive.|
|5||Any redevelopment of Clarence Pier should be high-quality and contemporary, with the distinctive design of the existing buildings||Do not keep the existing buildings. Keep the history of the area.|
|6||Something else||Need to redesign area. Contradictory proposal as this will encourage cars so there should be less parking and vehicle free areas. Unique character of area should not be lost.|
 Discrepancies between the figures in the chart and the commentary are due to rounding.