Search
Generic filters

Encourage sustainable development, regeneration and prosperity in Portsmouth through effective management of parking.

Summary

  • Residents aged 45-54 are the group most likely to disagree with objective 1 (10%), which is to encourage sustainable development, regeneration and prosperity in Portsmouth through effective management of parking
  • Variation between other groups is smaller (up to 4%) however those aged 35-44, males, and residents living in PO4 and PO5 are more likely to disagree with objective 1
  • The main reason respondents disagree with objective 1 (14%) is that they feel parking is too expensive and is a tax on motorists
  • 13% also disagree with the objective for each of the following reasons; it is too vague and lacks substance, being generally negative towards the council, there is not enough parking, and due to disliking the residents parking schemes
  • 10-11% think that there are just too many people and cars in the city, or that sustainable development and prosperity have nothing to do with parking

Who disagrees with objective 1?

Base: (top to bottom) | Total sample: 2,086 | Age: 108, 152, 216, 286, 247, 91 | Sex: 563, 507 | Postcode: 114, 266, 131, 311, 159, 124, 58 | Disability: 230, 817

This chart shows the proportion of respondents who disagree with objective 1 (Encourage sustainable development, regeneration and prosperity in Portsmouth through effective management of parking):
5% of the total sample.
2% of those aged under 34, 6
% of those aged 35-44, 10% of those aged 45-54, 4% of those aged 55-64, 2% of those aged 65-74, and 2% of those aged 75 and over.
6% of males and 3% of females.
4% of those in PO1, 5% of those in PO2, 5% of those in PO3, 6% of those in PO4, 6% of those in PO5, 3% of those in PO6 and 5% of those living external to PO1-PO6.
4% of those with a disability and 4% of those without a disability.

Why do you disagree with draft objective 1?

Base: Respondents who disagree with objective 1 (109)
wdt_ID Key themes Percentage (%)
1 Parking too expensive / tax on motorists 14
2 Too vague / empty words 13
3 Generally negative towards the council 13
4 Not enough parking / dislike residents parking schemes 13
5 Too many people and cars in the city e.g. too many HMOs, not enough parking on new developments 11
6 Don't think objective will work / sustainable development and prosperity nothing to do with parking 10
7 Anti-motorist / vehicle use will be restricted 6
8 Will put visitors off if parking is not sufficient or too expensive 6
9 Public transport insufficient / not suitable for all 3
10 Too focused on green policies at cost of quality of life for residents 2
11 Other e.g. stop vans on residential roads, gain control of private car parks, too many disabled bays, convert forecourts into parking 5
12 No relevant comment / no comment 28