The majority of respondents support the proposed vision of the draft strategy (90%); 50% ‘strongly agree’ (637 respondents) and 40% ‘agree’ (501 respondents).

The level of respondents opposing the proposal is very low at just 3%.

The following chart shows that the vast majority of people (90%) agree with the proposed vision. 

The 3% of respondents who do not agree with the proposed vision were asked which elements they disagree with. ‘The seafront being a beautiful, functional, sustainable, and resilient place that is healthy, safe, enjoyable and accessible to all’ is the main element of the proposed vision that respondents disagree with, opposed by 56%.

Accessibility, facilities and the design of the seafront are the main points causing concern amongst this cohort.

The majority of respondents support the objectives (81%); 44% ‘strongly agree’ (470 respondents) and 37% ‘agree’ (389 respondents) with the proposed objectives.

The following chart shows the majority of respondents (81%) either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the proposed objectives. Disagreement levels are at a much lower level (11%).

The 10%[1] of respondents who disagree with the proposed objectives were asked which objectives they disagree with. The majority of this cohort disagree with the objective ‘Ensure that the new development, including alterations to roads, seek to minimise space allocated to motor vehicles, in order to better accommodate other users‘.

The bulk of objections towards the objectives were about restrictions on parking for motor vehicles and the area not being accessible to the elderly or people with a disability.

Common themes from the open-ended comments identified concerns about accessibility.

Respondents with a disability are less likely to be in agreement with the proposed objectives.

The following chart shows level of agreement with proposed objectives, filtered by disability. Respondents with a disability are more likely to disagree with the proposed objectives; 20% of them disagree compared to 9% of those with no disability.

[1] Discrepancies between the figures in the chart and the commentary are due to rounding.