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.
|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.