Household Questionnaire Results
Back to Regeneration
Household Questionnaire Analysis
The household questionnaire was sent to 794 households. A total of 354
questionnaires have been returned and analysed, including 30 from children at
Boscastle Primary School. The final analysis of results is set out below.
Respondents
|
Male:
|
Number
152
|
%
42.9
|
Female: |
Number
185
|
%
52.2
|
|
(17 responses – not given)
|
Age
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Under 10 |
17 |
4.8 |
|
10 -16 |
16 |
4.5 |
|
17 -25 |
9 |
2.5 |
|
26-40 |
29 |
8.2 |
|
41-55 |
106 |
29.9 |
|
56-65 |
94 |
26.5 |
|
66-75 |
49 |
13.8 |
|
75+ |
24 |
6.7 |
|
(10 responses - not given) |
Residency
|
Permanent
Resident
|
Number
277
|
%
78.2
|
Non permanent
resident
|
Number
50
|
%
14.1
|
|
(27 responses – not given) |
Directly
Affected by Flood
|
Yes: |
Number
108
|
%
30.5
|
No:
|
Number
229
|
%
64.7
|
|
(17 responses – not given) |
Aspiration for
Boscastle in Ten Year’s Time
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Keep it as it was |
148 |
41.8 |
|
Community development including better services/facilities; provision for
local people |
65 |
18.4 |
|
Higher quality services – attracting different types of tourists |
21 |
5.9 |
|
Less commercialised than at present |
40 |
11.3 |
|
No redevelopment in harbour/other areas of the village |
6 |
1.7 |
|
Improvements to infrastructure/access/car parking |
12 |
3.4 |
|
Provision to avoid future flood |
12 |
3.4 |
|
No response |
48 |
13.5 |
|
Other |
2 |
0.5 |
Car Parking
A: Reinstatement of the car park as it was prior to the flood
|
Yes |
Number
156
|
%
44
|
No |
Number
98
|
%
27.6
|
No response
|
Number
100
|
%
28.2
|
B: Redesign car park layout and location creating space for environmental
improvements
|
Yes |
Number
193
|
%
54.5
|
No |
Number
69
|
%
19.5
|
No response
|
Number
92
|
%
26
|
C: Provide some parking elsewhere in Boscastle to either partly replace or
act as an overspill car park
|
Yes |
Number
168
|
%
47.4
|
No |
Number
90
|
%
25.4
|
No response
|
Number
96
|
%
27.1
|
Comments
on Car Parking
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Insufficient parking available |
17 |
4.8 |
|
Concessionary parking for residents/residents relatives |
35 |
9.9 |
|
Cheaper parking/cheaper parking for visitors |
14 |
4 |
|
Parking is adequate |
21 |
5.9 |
|
More disabled parking |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Extend car park at current location |
37 |
10.4 |
|
Provide more parking elsewhere incl. top of village |
64 |
18 |
|
No roadside parking |
11 |
3.1 |
|
Need a park & ride system |
4 |
1.1 |
|
Need better landscaping |
17 |
4.8 |
|
Other |
21 |
5.9 |
|
No response |
111 |
31.4 |
Visitor Centre
A: provide a new building within the general vicinity of the car park
|
Yes |
Number
200
|
%
56.5
|
No |
Number
63
|
%
17.1
|
No response
|
Number
91
|
%
25.7
|
B: Re-use an existing building in the car park/harbour area
|
Yes |
Number
148
|
%
41.8
|
No |
Number
67
|
%
18.9
|
No response
|
Number
139
|
%
39.3
|
Comments
on redeveloping the Visitor Centre
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Keep it as it was/in keeping with local architecture |
49 |
13.8 |
|
Locate in car park |
30 |
8.5 |
|
Site in harbour café/other existing building in harbour area |
19 |
5.4 |
|
This is needed/urgent |
16 |
4.5 |
|
Do not locate in car park |
11 |
3.1 |
|
Include a museum/info on the flood |
11 |
3.1 |
|
Centre is not needed/should be smaller |
13 |
3.7 |
|
Combine with National Trust |
5 |
1.4 |
|
Situate away from river/flood risk |
5 |
1.4 |
|
More local knowledge/staffed by locals |
3 |
0.8 |
|
Other |
19 |
5.4 |
|
No response |
173 |
48.1 |
Public
Toilets
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Public conveniences needed at top and bottom of village |
31 |
8.7 |
|
Adequate facilities are essential/more are needed |
71 |
20 |
|
More pleasant building – more in keeping with surroundings |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Good quality facilities are needed, modern |
31 |
8.7 |
|
Locate in car park |
31 |
8.7 |
|
Locate at harbour |
17 |
4.8 |
|
Locate by surgery/top of village |
11 |
3.1 |
|
Need disabled toilets |
4 |
1.1 |
|
Reinstate toilets as they were before |
73 |
20.6 |
|
Toilets are only needed in the car park and harbour area |
41 |
11.6 |
|
Close the toilets by the surgery |
2 |
0.6 |
|
Locate next to/in the Visitor Centre |
10 |
2.8 |
|
Other |
9 |
2.5 |
|
No response |
21 |
5.9 |
Improvements
to the Harbour
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Leave it as it is/retain natural beauty |
62 |
17.5 |
|
Restrict vehicular access (as much as possible) |
14 |
3.9 |
|
Re-lay Valency lawn |
1 |
0.3 |
|
More seats |
48 |
13.5 |
|
Take care not to destroy natural surroundings when rebuilding |
22 |
6.2 |
|
No buskers |
10 |
2.3 |
|
Extra lighting |
15 |
4.2 |
|
Improve river edges |
7 |
2 |
|
Improve access/slipways/make more disabled friendly |
11 |
3.1 |
|
Remove sewage pipe/ensure harbour clean for swimming |
16 |
4.5 |
|
Litter bins provided and emptied/area kept clean and tidy |
8 |
2.2 |
|
Other |
36 |
10.2 |
|
No response |
104 |
29.4 |
The
Public Highway
|
|
Yes |
No |
No response |
|
|
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
|
Widen pavements |
117 |
33 |
131 |
37 |
106 |
29.9 |
|
Reduce or eliminate on street parking |
194 |
54.8 |
79 |
22.3 |
81 |
22.8 |
|
Improve bus stop facilities |
181 |
51.1 |
74 |
20.9 |
99 |
28 |
|
Improve location and type of street lighting |
179 |
50.6 |
68 |
19.2 |
107 |
30.2 |
|
Review options for traffic management |
161 |
45.5 |
73 |
20.6 |
120 |
33.9 |
Improvements
to the public highway
|
|
Number |
% |
|
Leave it as it was |
13 |
3.7 |
|
Pavements need improvement/widening at riverside |
42 |
11.9 |
|
On-street parking is necessary/laybys for buses and coaches |
11 |
3.1 |
|
Better street lighting |
23 |
6.5 |
|
Roundabout at surgery corner |
4 |
1.1 |
|
Traffic calming/stop speeding |
17 |
4.8 |
|
Better public transport |
5 |
1.4 |
|
Free short term parking in village |
7 |
2 |
|
Restrict on-street parking |
36 |
10.2 |
|
Fewer advertising boards/signs |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Do not widen pavements |
4 |
1.1 |
|
Other |
55 |
15.5 |
|
No response |
135 |
38.1 |
Continued on page 2
Back to top
| 
