Microsoft Word - Haden Hill LC.doc

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS
AND LEISURE CENTRES

FACILITY REPORT
FOR
HADEN HILL LEISURE CENTRE

Prepared by the
Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University
October 2007

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS AND
LEISURE CENTRES

CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION
1

2.
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE
2

3.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FOR HADEN HILL LEISURE
4
CENTRE

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA
10

5.
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR HADEN HILL
11
LEISURE CENTRE

APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

NBS REPORT FOR HADEN HILL LEISURE CENTRE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1
This report has been produced by Sport England’s National Benchmarking Service
for Sports and Leisure Centres (hereafter referred to as ‘NBS’) for Haden Hill
Leisure Centre, which is run by Sandwell Leisure Trust. The report has been
compiled by staff from the Sport Industry Research Centre (SIRC) at Sheffield
Hallam University.

1.2
Before investigating the details of performance for Haden Hill Leisure Centre in
this report, please read the accompanying Guidance document to accompany
facility reports.

1.3
The data in this report is based upon a survey of 237 users of the centre between 9th
June and 17th June 2007, conducted by Leisure Net Solutions; and a financial return
based on the year 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007. It should be noted that the user
survey sample is well below the recommended number of 350. This adversely
affects the reliability of the user survey results and any indicator scores derived
from them (principally access indicators) are therefore only indicative. The user
survey and financial return are supplemented by catchment area data provided by
the University of Edinburgh. A catchment area map is provided in section four of
this report.

1.4
Haden Hill Leisure Centre is classified as being a 'mixed without outdoor' centre
which means that it has a swimming pool of at least 20 metres in length and an
indoor sports hall which could accommodate at least 4 badminton courts but no
outdoor provision. The actual floor space of the centre is 4,556m2 which means that
it is benchmarked against broadly comparable centres with a total floor space of at
least 3,000m2 (that is large centres) and it has 3,712m2 of usable space. The
catchment area has a relatively high proportion (27.94%) of residents from NS-SEC
6&7, representing the most disadvantaged people in society. The centre is managed
by a trust. In brief the benchmarking 'families' used for Haden Hill are:

•  Mixed without outdoor site (benchmark family of 32 centres)
•  20%+ of catchment population in NS-SEC 6&7 (benchmark family of 41
centres)
•  3,000+m2 floor space (benchmark family of 42 centres)
•  Trust management (benchmark family of 35 centres)

1

2.
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE

Figure 1: Haden Hill User Survey Characteristics

Note: The survey instrument groups respondents according to the new NS-SEC

classification as used in the 2001 Census and now used as standard in all government surveys.

2.1
The broad nature of the 237 people who took part in the survey is shown in Figure
1. The primary purpose of the data in Figure 1 is for calculating Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for comparison against benchmarks, whilst a secondary purpose
is to provide important stakeholders with an overview of the user survey sample.
Venue managers should reflect on the data and qualify the extent to which they are
truly representative of the customer base (422,511 visits in 2006/07). It should be
emphasised that any performance indicator scores dependent on the user survey
findings are governed by the accuracy of the sampling in this survey especially
given the low sample size.

2.2
A further test of representativeness is 'internal representativeness', that is the extent
to which the respondents to the user survey truly reflect the balance of the
programme and usage of the venue. Some key indicators in this regard are shown
in Figure 2.

2

Figure 2: Haden Hill User Survey Balance of Use

Note: the percentages 'swimming' and 'using the pool' may vary because of two factors: first,
many spectators use the pool area; second, the number of non-respondents to each question
differs considerably.

2.3
Swimming (49%) was the most frequently stated main activity by survey
respondents, followed by the use of fitness equipment (20%). Together these two
activities account for over two-thirds of the main activities undertaken during the
survey period. Given the distribution of activities undertaken, it is not surprising
that the pool and gym/fitness centre were the most utilised areas of the facility. The
majority of activities undertaken were casual (77%) rather than instructor led or
club usage. About 52% of the respondents had some form of leisure card which
gave them reduced price admission to the centre. Less than half of the discounted
admissions made via leisure cards were by people with some form of disadvantage.

2.4
Assuming that the surveys were conducted randomly and that the user profile
accurately reflects the centre's customer base, we now consider the centre's
performance against a series of Key Performance Indicators and family specific
benchmarks.

3

3.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FOR HADEN HILL LEISURE CENTRE

3.1
The centre's performance is reported first, for the key indicators, relative to CPA
thresholds; and second, for all indicators, relative to the 2006 national benchmarks,
the latest available.

3.2
At the time of reporting, the seven facility performance indicators which had been
proposed for the CPA have now been withdrawn from the CPA. Nevertheless, this
report retains a structure of reporting against the previously proposed CPA
thresholds for these seven indicators. This is because they are a good indication of
national government priorities for sports facilities, and can therefore still be
considered as key indicators for such facilities.

Performance for key indicators relative to proposed CPA thresholds

3.3
The centre's performance is consistent relative to the proposed CPA thresholds,
with one of the seven key indicator scores above its upper threshold, four indicator
scores between the thresholds and one indicator score below the lower CPA
threshold. It should be noted that the score for Black, Asian and other ethnic
groups is only marginally above its lower CPA threshold. For the seventh proposed
CPA indicator, disabled under 60 years, the measurement of the indicator has
changed and recommended CPA thresholds were not agreed.

4

Performance relative to national benchmarks

3.4
The figures in this section position performance for each indicator relative to the
four quartiles and three benchmarks identified in the general guidance which
accompanies this report. This positioning has been judged by the NBS analysts by
examining 'average' performance across the four family comparisons. These four
comparisons for each indicator are in the detailed performance results in Section 5
below.

Key indicators

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top

Key indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile

11-19 years

NS-Sec 6&7

Ethnic minorities

60+ years

Disabled <60 years

Subsidy per visit

3.5
The performance of the centre for key indicators relative to the national
benchmarks offers more detailed relative positioning than the performance relative
to proposed CPA thresholds and in this case presents a weaker picture after
allowing for the fact that 'disabled under 60' performance is now included and
'visits per square metre' performance is excluded. Because the definition of the
previously proposed CPA indicator for visits per square metre was changed by the
Audit Commission and DCMS, to exclude corridors and offices in the measurement
of square metres, there are no benchmarks to compare with at present for this
proposed CPA indicator. In the other indicators part of Section 5 of this report, and
in the utilisation summary below, the visits per square metre indicator is measured
in the way that NBS has always measured it (including corridors and offices in the
square metres), and compared with the 2006 benchmarks. Furthermore, the centre
had actual central establishment charges which were zero and in the financial return
you estimated what they would have been if they had been charged - the CPA
subsidy per visit calculation includes these estimated central establishment charges
in the total costs. In the other indicators part of Section 5 of this report, the subsidy
per visit indicator is measured by using actual costs, including zero central
establishment charges for your centre.

3.6
One of the key indicator scores is in the top quartile. Two, however, for 11-19
years and Black, Asian and other ethnic groups, are in the bottom quartile - the

5

latter despite scoring higher than the lower CPA threshold, indicating how low this
threshold was proposed. Black and other ethnic minorities are nearly 9% of the
adult catchment population, but are 6.5% of visits to the centre in the period of the
NBS user survey. 11-19 year olds are over 13% of the adult catchment population,
but only just over 3% of the visits according to the user survey. The efficiency
indicator subsidy per visit performs at the 25% benchmark level relative to other
similar facilities.

Access

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Access indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Females

11-19 years

20-59 years

60+ years

NS-Sec 6&7

Ethnic minorities

Disabled <60 years

Disabled 60+

Unemployed

Discount card holders

Disadvantaged card holders

First visits

3.7
When considering the wider set of access indicators, rather than just those in the
proposed CPA key indicators, the picture is of more mixed access performance. It
is important to stress that not all the access groups identified are likely to be
important to a social inclusion agenda. Five of the groups which might be seen as
important to social inclusion perform above the 50% benchmark level (NS-SEC
6&7, disabled under 60, disabled 60+, disadvantaged card holders, and the
unemployed), but three which are relevant to social inclusion are below their 50%
benchmark performance levels (11-19 years, ethnic minorities, and 60+). One
other indicator is in its top quartile (20-59 years) but they are not normally
considered relevant to social inclusion because they are not necessarily
disadvantaged.


3.8
Financial performance is weak relative to the benchmarks, with all four subsidy
indicators at or below their 25% benchmarks. All the subsidy scores in the other
indicators figures in Section 5 are calculated using the actual costs, rather than
including any estimated central establishment costs. The main factor which
constrains this financial performance is relatively weak income performance, which

6

is not sufficiently compensated by relatively strong operating cost performance.
Direct income per visit is very low, in its bottom quartile, and it is relevant to note
that satisfaction with entrance charges and value for money of activities are
respectively seventh and tenth in the satisfaction rankings, with average customer
scores of 4.35 and 4.31 out of 5. These are unusually high and suggest room for
increasing activity prices and hence direct income per visit.

Financial

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Financial indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Subsidy per visit

Cost recovery

Subsidy per m2

Subsidy per resident

Operating cost per visit

Operating cost per m2

Maintenance and repair

cost per m2
Energy cost per m2

Income per visit

Income per m2

Direct income per visit

Secondary income per visit

Utilisation

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Utilisation indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Visits per m2

% of visits casual

Weekly number of people

visiting

3.9
The main throughput indicator, visits per square metre, is measured in the other
indicators figures in Section 5 by using the total floor space of the centre. This
indicator performs at the third quartile level. However, the weekly number of
people visiting performs at the top quartile, suggesting excellent market penetration
in the local catchment population. The percentage of visits which are casual (77%)
is average by industry standards but whether or not this level of casual use is
appropriate depends on the targeting and programming policies of the centre.

7

Satisfaction with and importance of attributes

3.10
The tables below identify five attributes with the largest gaps between importance
and satisfaction, by mean scores or by ranks. These gaps signal the attributes with
the most potential to represent problems, although it should be emphasised that no
attribute has a satisfaction score of less than three, the neutral score (neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied), so there are no absolute problems among the attributes
scored in the user survey.

Mean score gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Cleanliness of changing areas
4.71
3.82
0.89
Quality of flooring in sports hall
4.54
3.67
0.87
Cleanliness of activity
spaces
4.69 3.94 0.75
Quality of lighting in sports hall
4.57
3.83
0.74
Number of people in the pool
4.64
4.16
0.48

Rank gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Cleanliness of changing areas
2
17
-15
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3
14
-11
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4
11
-7
Water quality in the swimming pool
1
6
-5
Number of people in the pool
8
13
-5

3.11 Three attributes feature in both the tables above. The second table demonstrates
that four of the attributes are the most important to customers. Cleanliness of the
changing areas shows the largest gaps whether measured by mean scores or
rankings. The appearance of cleanliness of the changing areas at the top of the gap
scores is not unusual for sports facilities. From the frequency distributions in the
appendix, it is apparent that 16% of respondents were dissatisfied with the
cleanliness of the changing areas, whilst 11% were dissatisfied with the cleanliness
of activity spaces (Appendix Q12m and n). Other significant levels of
dissatisfaction include 10% for the quality of food and drink (Q12l) and 17% for
both the flooring and lighting in the sports hall - although it should be noted that
only six respondents in the user survey gave a score to these two attributes (Q12 e
and f).

8

Strengths of the centre as perceived by customers
Attribute Satisfaction
Importance
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.63
1
4.67
5
Activity available at convenient times
4.52
2
4.66
6
Helpfulness of other staff
4.49
3
4.59
12
Range of activities available
4.42
4
4.54
16
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.41
5
4.63
9

3.12
According to the customers surveyed, the strengths of the centre involve staff and
accessibility attributes. Three of these attributes are not only in the top five
satisfaction rankings but also in the top ten for importance rankings - a desirable
correlation. Overall satisfaction with the visit achieves a mean score of 4.43 out of
five, which is one of the highest satisfaction scores compared with the individual
attributes.

9

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA

4.1
The catchment area shown in this map is defined as the area within which Haden
Hill Leisure Centre attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the area within
which Haden Hill is the dominant supplier.
Sport England Benchmark Service
Haden Hill LC
Rou
Ro u
Dudl
D
ey
udle
udl y
e
Ne
N th
Ne
e
Net
Ne e
th
tth
h
th r
e
he to
r
er t
r n
to
t n
to
Netherto
o
o
Por
Po t
r w
t a
w y
aa
Row
Ro l
w e
l y
e  R
y e
R
R g
Ree
Re i
g s
i
Pr
P im
Pr
Pr i
r
r
im
im o
r
mr s
o
ro e
s
os  H
e
s
i
e H
H
e
ll
i
H
Hll
ill
Prim rose Hill
ill
ill
ill
Bl
B a
Bll c
a k
cc h
ack e
h
kh a
e t
a
ea h
att
Ol
O d
Ol
Ol  H
ld
d
ld i
Old
Ol  H
H
d
l
i l
H
Hl
i l
ill
Old Hill
Qu
Q a
u rry
aa
B
rry a
B n
a k
n
Coom
Co
be
om
s
be w
s oo
w
d
ood
oo
Cra
Cr d
a l
d
ad e
l y
e
ley
Wo
W l
o l
l e
l s
lle c
s o
c
esc t
o e
t e
Key
Catchment
Haden Hill LC
Additional material ©Sport England
Map produced by T he Planning Dat a Management  Service
©The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserv ed ©ONS 2001 all rights reserv ed
Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of The Controller of HMSO © Crown Copyright
JOBPE using Mapinfo for Sport  England
Unauthorised reproduction infringes infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings

10

Proposed CPA Indicators
% visits 11-19 years ÷ % catchment population 11-19 years
2.61
2.50
2.15
2.15
2.00
1.80
1.50
1.33
1.18
1.18
1.06
0.94
1.00
0.91
0.90
CPA upper
0.85
0.73
0.65
0.71
0.61
0.50
CPA lower
0.36
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.23
CPA upper = 1.00
CPA lower = 0.55
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits from social classes 6 & 7 ÷ % catchment population in social classes 6 & 7
2.19
2.19
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.77
0.70
0.73
0.73
0.58
0.49
0.53
0.50
0.50
0.41
0.38
CPA upper
0.37
0.35
0.25
0.19
0.19
0.21
CPA lower
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.93
CPA upper = 0.50
CPA lower = 0.20
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
12

% visits from black, Asian & other ethnic groups ÷ % catchment population in same
ethnic groups
5.25
5.25
5.25
4.00
2.00
1.71
1.45
1.57
1.53
1.27
1.04
1.14
1.11
1.06
0.87
0.86
0.96
0.83
CPA upper
0.59
0.59
CPA lower
0.30
0.18
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.76
CPA upper = 1.00
CPA lower = 0.75
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years ÷ % catchment population 60+ years
1.58
1.58
1.50
1.00
0.87
0.87
CPA upper
0.64
0.59
0.60
0.53
0.50
0.45
0.44
0.47
0.44
0.38
0.35
0.37
0.31
CPA lower
0.19
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.43
CPA upper = 0.85
CPA lower = 0.35
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
13

% visits <60 years disabled ÷ % catchment population <60 years disabled
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.12
1.00
0.77
0.70
0.69
0.71
0.63
0.59
0.59
0.55
0.51
0.47
0.50
0.44
0.41
0.23
0.19
0.08
0.08
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.63
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
At present, no proposed CPA thresholds are available for this indicator, because the indicator has changed. As soon
as the thresholds have been decided, NBS clients will be notified and their performance for the indicator compared with
the new thresholds.
Subsidy per visit (£) - 1
-1.92
-1.92
-1.92
-0.39
-0.37
-0.08
0.02
0.00
0.26
0.11
CPA upper
0.60
0.48
1.12
0.98
1.09
1.85
2.08
2.00
CPA lower
4.00
4.36
4.54
4.92
4.92
6.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 1.75
CPA upper = -0.10
CPA lower = 2.40
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
(a) To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the
best score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster. Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some
of the 75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
(b) Subsidy for this proposed CPA indicator includes consideration of estimated central establishment charges where
the actual charges are zero
14

Annual visits per sq. m. - 1
300
200
CPA upper
100
CPA lower
0
Centre score = 114
CPA upper = 150
CPA lower = 60
For this performance indicator, square metres of indoor space excludes offices and corridors
15

Other important Indicators
% visits 20-59 years ÷ % catchment population 20-59 years
1.44
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.36
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.18
1.19
1.18
1.15
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.05
1.00
1.00
0.93
0.93
0.80
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 1.40
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits which were first visits
23.03
23.03
20.83
20.83
20.00
15.00
10.00
8.97
8.52
7.20
6.65
5.71
5.92
5.16
5.04
5.00
3.81
4.26
3.25
3.36
2.03
1.85
2.10
2.24
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 4.22
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
16

% visits with discount card
79.14
79.14
76.60
74.39
65.43
59.22
60.11
60.00
57.31
56.23
47.15
48.59
40.96
38.61
40.00
34.74
36.17
27.17
20.00
8.65
3.87
5.33
3.87
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 51.53
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits with discount card for 'disadvantage'
47.48
47.48
47.26
40.00
30.00
24.28
24.88
22.88
19.30
20.00
16.41
12.96
13.45
13.93
10.69
9.01
10.00
7.82
7.23
8.13
2.47
2.98
2.47
1.16
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 21.83
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
17

% visits female
75
73
69
69
70
63
63
62
60
60
57
56
57
56
54
53
51
52
50
49
41
40
30
30
30
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 56
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years disabled ÷ % catchment population 60+ years disabled
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.09
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
18

% visits unemployed
13.77
13.77
10.00
7.11
5.82
5.47
4.91
5.00
3.11
3.00
2.66
1.70
1.72
1.85
1.24
1.06
1.48
1.14
0.00
0.28
0.27
0.00
0.00
-5.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 2.61
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% cost recovery
164
164
164
150
113
110
103
100
100
93
96
80
81
70
71
66
59
47
50
41
32
27
27
0
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 58
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
19

Subsidy per visit (£) - 2
-1.92
-1.92
-1.92
-0.39
-0.37
-0.08
0.02
0.00
0.26
0.11
0.60
0.48
1.12
0.98
1.09
1.85
2.08
2.00
4.00
4.36
4.54
4.92
4.92
6.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 1.21
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
(a) To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the
best score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster. Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some
of the 75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
(b) Subsidy for this indicator includes consideration of actual central establishment charges whether they are zero or
positive
Subsidy per sq. m. (£)
-367
-286
-286
-200
-26
-30
-5
2
0
25
10
32
55
94
82
105
95
147
191
200
284
363
363
400
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 112
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster. Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some of the
75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
20

Subsidy per resident (£)
-41.20
-41.20
-41.20
-40.00
-20.00
-4.42
-1.53
-3.23
-0.18
0.00
3.55
1.71
4.18
4.15
6.89
8.77
10.80
12.96
14.85
19.19
20.00
30.23
30.23
30.23
40.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 19.40
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
The catchment population used for this indicator allows for competing facilities nearby. This is different from previous
NBS reports.
Total operating cost per visit (£)
1.78
1.68
1.68
1.78
2.00
2.46
2.85
2.92
3.36
3.13
3.63
4.00
4.15
4.00
4.67
4.90
5.25
5.45
6.00
8.26
8.26
8.00
10.00
10.45
10.45
12.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 2.87
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
21

Total operating cost per sq. m. (£)
48
48
99
145
174
211
208
186
238
300
297
310
357
422
405
405
475
500
580
1000
1063
1238
1500
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 266
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
Maintenance and repair costs per sq. m. (£)
0
0
0
0
6
5
1
11
8
14
14
11
9
24
27
23
27
50
71
85
85
100
150
156
200
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 7
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
22

Energy costs per sq. m. (£)
4
4
8
6
21
19
19
19
24
26
24
27
31
38
37
39
50
62
96
100
138
138
150
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 25
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
Total income per visit (£)
7.83
6.35
6.35
6.50
6.00
4.58
3.98
4.05
4.00
3.52
3.21
3.05
2.86
2.68
2.46
2.61
2.44
1.80
2.00
1.53
1.33
1.50
0.77
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 1.66
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
23

Total income per sq. m. (£)
1431
1000
876
733
733
500
423
346
298
274
235
248
179
190
193
124
127
116
139
67
46
46
0
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 154
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Direct income per visit (£)
7.79
6.17
6.00
5.58
5.58
4.43
4.00
3.69
3.55
3.29
2.91
2.65
2.62
2.39
2.10
2.12
2.06
2.00
1.49
1.59
1.48
1.13
0.74
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 1.54
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
24

Secondary income per visit (£)
1.27
1.27
1.01
1.00
0.77
0.50
0.50
0.42
0.43
0.31
0.23
0.25
0.14
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 0.12
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Annual visits per sq. m. - 2
355
301
300
200
169
154
107
103
102
100
88
88
95
66
73
64
70
45
37
23
23
16
16
0
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 93
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
For this indicator, total indoor floor space is used
25

% visits casual, instead of organised
96
95
96
89
84
83
83
81
80
77
77
76
74
70
70
65
61
60
40
37
33
20
16
16
0
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 77
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Weekly number of people visiting the facility, as % of catchment population
65.24
65.24
65.24
60.00
40.00
22.19
20.00
14.80
12.57
9.96
10.83
11.18
9.35
7.79
7.98
7.92
5.59
5.82
4.66
2.53
1.53
0.59
0.59
0.00
Mixed without
High NS-SEC
3000+ sq.m.
Trust
outdoor
Centre score = 21.80
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
26

Satisfaction and importance scores: by attribute
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
Accessibility
a.
Activity available at convenient times
6 4.66 226
2 4.52 234
4
0.14
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.56 179
8 4.33 153
6
0.23
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.63 227
7 4.35 228
3
0.28
d.
The range of activities available
16 4.54 215
4 4.42 217
12
0.12
Quality of facilities/services
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
15 4.54
83
19 3.67
6
-4
0.87
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
13 4.57
83
16 3.83
6
-3
0.74
g.
Quality of equipment
11 4.61 160
12 4.24 140
-1
0.37
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.74 152
6 4.38 185
-5
0.36
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4 4.69 151
11 4.25 186
-7
0.44
j.
Number of people in the pool
8 4.64 153
13 4.16 187
-5
0.48
k.
Quality of car parking on site
17 4.50 209
9 4.32 180
8
0.18
l.
Quality of food and drink
19 4.11 186
18 3.69 177
1
0.42
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.71 216
17 3.82 213
-15
0.89
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.69 220
14 3.94 209
-11
0.75
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
9 4.63 232
5 4.41 230
4
0.22
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
12 4.59 224
3 4.49 215
9
0.10
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
5 4.67 189
1 4.63
82
4
0.04
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
7 4.66 224
10 4.31 229
-3
0.35
s.
Value for money of food/drink
18 4.27 197
15 3.88 179
3
0.39
Other attributes *
t.
Overall satisfaction with visit
N/A
4.43 230
* The other attribute(s) listed at the end of the table have either the satisfaction or importance scores but not both. This
is for logical reasons - e.g. Overall satisfaction with visit does not have an importance score; no satisfaction score for
pool attributes if there is no pool at the centre. Therefore such attributes do not appear in the subsequent tables of
'gaps'.
27

Satisfaction and importance scores: by mean gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.71 216
17 3.82 213
-15
0.89
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
15 4.54
83
19 3.67
6
-4
0.87
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.69 220
14 3.94 209
-11
0.75
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
13 4.57
83
16 3.83
6
-3
0.74
j.
Number of people in the pool
8 4.64 153
13 4.16 187
-5
0.48
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4 4.69 151
11 4.25 186
-7
0.44
l.
Quality of food and drink
19 4.11 186
18 3.69 177
1
0.42
s.
Value for money of food/drink
18 4.27 197
15 3.88 179
3
0.39
g.
Quality of equipment
11 4.61 160
12 4.24 140
-1
0.37
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.74 152
6 4.38 185
-5
0.36
r.
Value for money of activities
7 4.66 224
10 4.31 229
-3
0.35
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.63 227
7 4.35 228
3
0.28
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.56 179
8 4.33 153
6
0.23
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
9 4.63 232
5 4.41 230
4
0.22
k.
Quality of car parking on site
17 4.50 209
9 4.32 180
8
0.18
a.
Activity available at convenient times
6 4.66 226
2 4.52 234
4
0.14
d.
The range of activities available
16 4.54 215
4 4.42 217
12
0.12
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
12 4.59 224
3 4.49 215
9
0.10
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
5 4.67 189
1 4.63
82
4
0.04
28

Satisfaction and importance scores: by rank gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.71 216
17 3.82 213
-15
0.89
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.69 220
14 3.94 209
-11
0.75
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4 4.69 151
11 4.25 186
-7
0.44
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.74 152
6 4.38 185
-5
0.36
j.
Number of people in the pool
8 4.64 153
13 4.16 187
-5
0.48
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
15 4.54
83
19 3.67
6
-4
0.87
r.
Value for money of activities
7 4.66 224
10 4.31 229
-3
0.35
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
13 4.57
83
16 3.83
6
-3
0.74
g.
Quality of equipment
11 4.61 160
12 4.24 140
-1
0.37
l.
Quality of food and drink
19 4.11 186
18 3.69 177
1
0.42
s.
Value for money of food/drink
18 4.27 197
15 3.88 179
3
0.39
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.63 227
7 4.35 228
3
0.28
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
9 4.63 232
5 4.41 230
4
0.22
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
5 4.67 189
1 4.63
82
4
0.04
a.
Activity available at convenient times
6 4.66 226
2 4.52 234
4
0.14
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.56 179
8 4.33 153
6
0.23
k.
Quality of car parking on site
17 4.50 209
9 4.32 180
8
0.18
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
12 4.59 224
3 4.49 215
9
0.10
d.
The range of activities available
16 4.54 215
4 4.42 217
12
0.12
29

APPENDIX 1:

USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
3 ( 1.3% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
5 ( 2.1% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
48 ( 20.3% )
Martial arts
0 ( 0.0% )
Five-a-side football
1 ( 0.4% )
Gymnastics
13 ( 5.5% )
Basketball or volleyball
0 ( 0.0% )
Other physical activity
1 ( 0.4% )
Swimming or aqua fit
116 ( 48.9% )
A spectator
43 ( 18.1% )
Another type of activity
7 ( 3.0% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
116 ( 63.7% )
Gym/fitness centre
59 ( 32.4% )
Outside facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Main hall
5 ( 2.7% )
Smaller hall
1 ( 0.5% )
Another part of the facility
1 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
55
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
25 ( 13.7% )
As an individual user
141 ( 77.5% )
As a member of a club or team
16 ( 8.8% )
Other
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
55
31

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
10 ( 4.2% )
No
227 ( 95.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
107 ( 46.5% )
2
58 ( 25.2% )
3
32 ( 13.9% )
4
16 ( 7.0% )
5
7 ( 3.0% )
6
4 ( 1.7% )
7
4 ( 1.7% )
8 plus
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
112 ( 49.1% )
6 to 10
59 ( 25.9% )
11 to 15
26 ( 11.4% )
16 to 20
19 ( 8.3% )
21 plus
12 ( 5.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
32

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
118 ( 51.5% )
No
111 ( 48.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
50 ( 42.7% )
Other
67 ( 57.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
120
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
205 ( 87.6% )
Straight from work, school or college
22 ( 9.4% )
Other e.g. from shopping
7 ( 3.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
190 ( 81.5% )
Public transport
6 ( 2.6% )
Walked all the way
37 ( 15.9% )
Other, including cycle
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
4
33

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
45 ( 19.5% )
6-10 minutes
85 ( 36.8% )
11-15 minutes
56 ( 24.2% )
16-20 minutes
16 ( 6.9% )
21-30 minutes
18 ( 7.8% )
31-45 minutes
7 ( 3.0% )
Over 45 minutes
4 ( 1.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
148 ( 63.2% )
Fairly satisfied
69 ( 29.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
9 ( 3.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.6% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
78 ( 51.0% )
Fairly satisfied
53 ( 34.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
17 ( 11.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 2.6% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
84
34

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
117 ( 51.3% )
Fairly satisfied
81 ( 35.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 10.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 2.2% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
110 ( 50.7% )
Fairly satisfied
91 ( 41.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14 ( 6.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.9% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
20
Q12e Satisfaction - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very satisfied
2 ( 33.3% )
Fairly satisfied
1 ( 16.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
2 ( 33.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 16.7% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
231
35

Q12f Satisfaction - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very satisfied
2 ( 33.3% )
Fairly satisfied
2 ( 33.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
1 ( 16.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 16.7% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
231
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
61 ( 43.6% )
Fairly satisfied
55 ( 39.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 15.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 1.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
97
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
93 ( 50.3% )
Fairly satisfied
74 ( 40.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
15 ( 8.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.5% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
52
36

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
85 ( 45.7% )
Fairly satisfied
78 ( 41.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
13 ( 7.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 2.7% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 2.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
51
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
75 ( 40.1% )
Fairly satisfied
82 ( 43.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
17 ( 9.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 5.9% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
50
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
89 ( 49.4% )
Fairly satisfied
64 ( 35.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 12.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 2.8% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
57
37

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
44 ( 24.9% )
Fairly satisfied
62 ( 35.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
54 ( 30.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 3.4% )
Very dissatisfied
11 ( 6.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
60
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
71 ( 33.3% )
Fairly satisfied
83 ( 39.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 11.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
20 ( 9.4% )
Very dissatisfied
15 ( 7.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
24
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
73 ( 34.9% )
Fairly satisfied
85 ( 40.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
28 ( 13.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 5.3% )
Very dissatisfied
12 ( 5.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
28
38

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
129 ( 56.1% )
Fairly satisfied
77 ( 33.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 7.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.6% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
127 ( 59.1% )
Fairly satisfied
70 ( 32.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 7.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
22
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
55 ( 67.1% )
Fairly satisfied
24 ( 29.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
3 ( 3.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
155
39

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
111 ( 48.5% )
Fairly satisfied
88 ( 38.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 9.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 3.1% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
55 ( 30.7% )
Fairly satisfied
65 ( 36.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
49 ( 27.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
3 ( 1.7% )
Very dissatisfied
7 ( 3.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
58
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
115 ( 50.0% )
Fairly satisfied
101 ( 43.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
12 ( 5.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.9% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
40

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
155 ( 68.6% )
Fairly important
65 ( 28.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
6 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
112 ( 62.6% )
Fairly important
55 ( 30.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 6.7% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
58
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
152 ( 67.0% )
Fairly important
65 ( 28.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 4.4% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
41

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
139 ( 64.7% )
Fairly important
56 ( 26.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
18 ( 8.4% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
22
Q13e Importance - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very important
54 ( 65.1% )
Fairly important
20 ( 24.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 10.8% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
154
Q13f Importance - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very important
57 ( 68.7% )
Fairly important
16 ( 19.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 12.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
154
42

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
112 ( 70.0% )
Fairly important
34 ( 21.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
13 ( 8.1% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
77
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
121 ( 79.6% )
Fairly important
25 ( 16.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 3.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
85
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
108 ( 71.5% )
Fairly important
39 ( 25.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
4 ( 2.6% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
86
43

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
108 ( 70.6% )
Fairly important
36 ( 23.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
8 ( 5.2% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.7% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
84
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
123 ( 58.9% )
Fairly important
69 ( 33.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
16 ( 7.7% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
28
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
79 ( 42.5% )
Fairly important
60 ( 32.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
39 ( 21.0% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 2.7% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
51
44

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
174 ( 80.6% )
Fairly important
29 ( 13.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
8 ( 3.7% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.4% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
21
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
169 ( 76.8% )
Fairly important
38 ( 17.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 4.5% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.9% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
160 ( 69.0% )
Fairly important
60 ( 25.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 4.7% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
45

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
149 ( 66.5% )
Fairly important
61 ( 27.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 5.4% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
139 ( 73.5% )
Fairly important
39 ( 20.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 5.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
48
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
159 ( 71.0% )
Fairly important
55 ( 24.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
8 ( 3.6% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.9% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
46

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
103 ( 52.3% )
Fairly important
54 ( 27.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
34 ( 17.3% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.5% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
40
Q14 Gender.
Male
104 ( 44.3% )
Female
131 ( 55.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
215 ( 93.5% )
Mixed
2 ( 0.9% )
Asian or Asian British
6 ( 2.6% )
Black or Black British
5 ( 2.2% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
47

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
29 ( 12.7% )
No
199 ( 87.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
7 ( 3.1% )
20 to 59
197 ( 86.0% )
60 plus
25 ( 10.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
116 ( 50.4% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
48 ( 20.9% )
On government work training programme
0 ( 0.0% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
15 ( 6.5% )
Retired - company / personal pension
10 ( 4.3% )
Retired - state pension only
12 ( 5.2% )
Temporarily unable to work
0 ( 0.0% )
Permanently unable to work
3 ( 1.3% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
2 ( 0.9% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
4 ( 1.7% )
In full-time education (school)
5 ( 2.2% )
Full-time student (college/university)
9 ( 3.9% )
Never worked
4 ( 1.7% )
None of these
2 ( 0.9% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
48

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
86 ( 42.0% )
3
42 ( 20.5% )
4
11 ( 5.4% )
5
13 ( 6.3% )
6 & 7
53 ( 25.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
32
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
B64
58
( 24.8% )
24.8
B63
35
( 15.0% )
39.7
DY2
35
( 15.0% )
54.7
B65
27
( 11.5% )
66.2
B62
22
( 9.4% )
75.6
B68
11
( 4.7% )
80.3
DY5
10
( 4.3% )
84.6
B69
7
( 3.0% )
87.6
B32
5
( 2.1% )
89.7
DY9
4
( 1.7% )
91.5
DY1
3
( 1.3% )
92.7
DY3
3
( 1.3% )
94.0
DY4
2
( 0.9% )
94.9
DY8
2
( 0.9% )
95.7
B17
1
( 0.4% )
96.2
B29
1
( 0.4% )
96.6
B42
1
( 0.4% )
97.0
B43
1
( 0.4% )
97.4
B61
1
( 0.4% )
97.9
B66
1
( 0.4% )
98.3
B67
1
( 0.4% )
98.7
BY4
1
( 0.4% )
99.1
CE15
1
( 0.4% )
99.6
D69
1
( 0.4% )
100.0
Missing/Not applicable
3
49