This table shows why respondents feel dissatisfied that accessibility has been taken into consideration:
37% of respondents are dissatisfied due to the lack of parking overall and the fact it is too far away from the site
22% are dissatisfied specifically with the lack of disabled parking
8% are dissatisfied with the lack of accessibility inclusion beyond wheelchair users or feel that the definition of disability is too narrow, for example, not including users who are blind, deaf, or autistic
6% are dissatisfied due to the apparent lack of lifts and ramps in the proposals
6% are dissatisfied as they feel the changing facilities/ pool do not appear to be entirely accessible, such as needing a dipper hoist for those with multiple and profound disabilities
6% are dissatisfied as the centre is only accessible by car and/or is not well-connected to other forms of transport
14% are dissatisfied for other reasons
20% did not leave a relevant comment
| wdt_ID | Key themes | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lack of parking overall and too far away from the site | 37 |
| 2 | Lack of disabled parking | 22 |
| 3 | Lack of accessibility inclusion beyond wheelchair users/ definition of disability is too narrow (e.g. users who are blind, deaf, autistic) | 8 |
| 4 | Apparent lack of lifts and ramps | 6 |
| 5 | Changing facilities/ pool do not appear entirely accessible (dipper hoist needed for those with multiple and profound disabilities) | 6 |
| 6 | Only accessible by car/ not well-connected to other forms of transport | 6 |
| 7 | Other | 14 |
| 8 | No relevant comment | 20 |
