Microsoft Word - Langley SC.doc

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS
AND LEISURE CENTRES

FACILITY REPORT
FOR
LANGLEY SWIMMING 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 LANGLEY SWIMMING
4
CENTRE

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA
10

5.
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LANGLEY
11
SWIMMING CENTRE

APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

NBS REPORT FOR LANGLEY SWIMMING 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 Langley
Swimming 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 Langley Swimming 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 340 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. 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
Langley Swimming Centre is classified as being a 'wet' centre which means that it
has a swimming pool of at least 20 metres in length, but no indoor sports hall that is
of the minimum configuration (of four badminton courts) specified by Sport
England to be classed as having 'dry' provision. The actual floor space of the centre
is 1,787m2 which means that it is benchmarked against comparable centres with a
total floor space of 1,500m2 to less than 3,000m2 (that is medium sized centres) and
it has 1,178m2 of usable space. The catchment area has a relatively high proportion
(27.62%) 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 Langley are:

•  Wet site (benchmark family of 27 centres)
•  20%+ of catchment population in NS-SEC 6&7 (benchmark family of 41
centres)
•  1,500 to <3000m2 floor space (benchmark family of 49 centres)
•  Trust management (benchmark family of 35 centres)

1

2.
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE

Figure 1: Langley 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 340 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 (171,627 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.

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: Langley 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 was the most frequently stated main activity by survey respondents,
accounting for 74% of the main activities undertaken during the survey period. It is
important that managers are able to confirm that the distribution of the users is
broadly in line with the centre's overall usage patterns. The majority of activities
undertaken were either casual or instructor led, and it is relevant to note that
respondents attach a high level of importance to, and express considerable
satisfaction with, the standard of coaching and instruction offered by the centre.
Just under half (49%) of the respondents had some form of leisure card which gave
them reduced price admission to the centre. Less than one in every two 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 LANGLEY SWIMMING 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 mixed relative to the proposed CPA thresholds, with
one of the seven key indicator scores above its upper threshold, three indicator
scores between the thresholds and two indicator scores below their 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, for 60+ access, is in the top quartile. Four,
however, are at or below their 25% benchmarks, which is weak performance

5

relative to industry standards. In the case of 11-19 year olds this is the result of this
age group being over 14% of the adult catchment population, but only just over 2%
of adult visits to the centre in the period of the NBS user survey. The efficiency
indicator subsidy per visit also performs at the bottom quartile 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,
with a lot of strengths. 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 at the 50%
benchmark level or above (NS-SEC 6&7, 60+, disabled 60+, disadvantaged card
holders, and the unemployed), but three which are relevant to social inclusion are at
or below their 25% benchmark performance levels (11-19 years, ethnic minorities,
and disabled under 60). The relative position of first visits, in its bottom quartile,
needs interpreting with caution - on the one hand it signifies a lower reach into new
markets than other centres nationally, but on the other hand the utilisation
indicators suggest reasonable market penetration - see below. Two other indicators
are in their top quartiles, but they are not normally considered relevant to social
inclusion, either because they are not disadvantaged (20-59 years) or they are
typically well represented in centres of this type (females).

3.8
Financial performance is weak relative to the benchmarks, with three subsidy
indicators in their bottom quartiles. 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

6

financial performance is low income, especially per visit, which is not compensated
by relatively stronger 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 fifth and sixth in the
satisfaction rankings, with average customer scores of 4.17 and 4.15 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, the simple product of a reasonable
number of annual visits for a centre of this size. Furthermore, the weekly number
of people visiting also performs at the third quartile, suggesting a reasonable
market penetration in the local catchment population. The percentage of visits
which are casual (47%) is very low 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
4.61
3.54
1.07
Cleanliness of activity
spaces
4.63 3.73 0.90
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4.65
3.95
0.70
Quality of equipment
4.56
3.98
0.58
Water quality in swimming pool
4.67
4.13
0.54

Rank gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Cleanliness of changing areas
5
16
-11
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4
14
-10
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3
12
-9
Water quality in the swimming pool
1
7
-6
Quality of equipment
8
11
-3

3.11 The same five attributes feature in both the tables above. The second table
demonstrates that four of the attributes are among the most important to customers.
Cleanliness attributes show 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 21% of respondents were dissatisfied with the
cleanliness of the changing areas, whilst 12% were dissatisfied with the cleanliness
of activity spaces (Appendix Q12m and n) - significant minorities. There is clearly
a relative problem with the pool according to these respondents, because water
quality and temperature in the pool are also among the largest gaps. However, it
should be emphasised that none of these attributes had mean satisfaction scores less
than 3, the neutral score. So any problems are not absolute, but relative - the
satisfaction scores falling short of the importance scores - and minorities of
customers are dissatisfied.

8

Strengths of the centre as perceived by customers
Attribute Satisfaction
Importance
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.34
1
4.59
6
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.33
2
4.66
2
Helpfulness of other staff
4.31
3
4.59
7
Activity available at convenient times
4.27
4
4.51
11
Activity charge/fee
4.17
5
4.45
13

3.12
According to the customers surveyed, the strengths of the centre involve staff and
accessibility attributes. All three staff attributes are in the top five satisfaction
rankings and also in the top ten for importance rankings - a desirable correlation.
The appearance of the activity charges in the strengths is unusual and reflects the
low direct income per visit for this centre. Overall satisfaction with the visit
achieves a mean score of 4.11 out of five.

9

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA

4.1
The catchment area shown in this map is defined as the area within which Langley
Swimming Centre attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the area within
which Langley is the dominant supplier.
Sport England Benchmark Service
Langley Swim Centre
Ch
C u
Ch r
u ch
hurc
r
f
h i
f
chf el
ie
i d
l
eld
Sw
S an
Sw
w
V
an
illag
Vill
V a
ill
e
illag
g
Dudl
D
Dud
Du e
udll
udl y
e  P
y o
P
P rt
o r
o t
rt
West B
We
r
st B
st B omw
r
i
omw ch
i
Sand
San
San
San w
d e
w l
e l
ll
Ro
R u
Ro n
R u
ou d
o n s G
u
ou d
n
unds
nds
und
r
G een
ds G
nds r
G een
re
r e
e
r
n
Rounds Gree
e n
e
e
Ol
O db
l
ury
db ur
db
y
ury
Sme
Sm t
e h
t w
h i
w
hwc
i k
c
ic
Por
Po
Po t
Por
Por wa
tw
t
rt
y
twa
w y
a
Portwa
Row
Ro l
w e
l y
e  Re
y
g
Re i
g s
i
Bear
B
Bea
Be w
earr
ear o
w o
o
wo d
oo
Bl
B ac
l
kh
Bl
Bac
l
e
kh at
ac
e h
kh at
e h
at
Blackheat h
ath
Coom
Co
b
Coom
om
Coom e
b s
e w
s ood
w
w
Key
Catchment
Langley Swim Centre
Additional material ©Sport England 2007
Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. © Crown Copyright 2003
Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of The Controller of HMSO
Map produced by The Planning Data Management Service
Unauthorised reproduction infringes infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings
18/06/2007 Job PE using Mapinfo for Sport England
License numbers C02W 0003683 & 10003311    ©The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved

10

Proposed CPA Indicators
% visits 11-19 years ÷ % catchment population 11-19 years
3.29
3.00
2.61
2.61
2.15
2.00
1.48
1.33
1.18
1.10
1.00
0.91
0.92
0.90
CPA upper
0.71
0.65
0.72
0.71
0.44
CPA lower
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.15
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
1.65
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.74
0.68
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.58
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.44
0.41
CPA upper
0.34
0.35
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.21
CPA lower
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.71
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
10.87
10.00
5.25
5.00
3.52
1.74
1.71
1.38
1.57
1.14
1.16
0.69 0.94
0.86
0.86
0.83 1.06 1.27
0.59
CPA upper
0.18
0.18
0.18
CPA lower
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.85
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
1.58
1.50
1.00
0.78
CPA upper
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.53
0.50
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.35
0.32
0.31
CPA lower
0.16
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.64
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
1.42
1.42
1.30
1.12
1.00
0.79
0.77
0.66
0.69
0.68
0.63
0.55
0.57
0.51
0.50
0.44
0.44
0.46
0.19
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.43
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
-1.52
-1.52
-0.39
-0.37
-0.03
-0.09
0.11
0.00
CPA upper
0.60
0.84
0.98
0.87
1.09
1.46
1.85
1.85
2.00
CPA lower
3.65
4.00
4.92
4.92
4.92
6.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 3.26
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 = 146
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
1.44
1.40
1.36
1.27
1.28
1.25
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.18
1.18
1.13
1.14
1.11
1.10
1.00
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.84
0.80
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.35
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits which were first visits
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.00
14.55
15.00
9.54
10.00
8.52
7.17
6.65
6.54
5.56
5.92
5.04
5.00
3.71
3.25
3.25
3.36
1.85
1.85
2.24
0.91
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.35
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
16

% visits with discount card
79.14
79.14
76.60
76.60
65.43
60.11
60.00
57.31
56.42
56.23
50.00
40.94
40.96
38.61
40.00
36.17
27.17
27.17
18.73
20.00
8.65
5.33
4.47
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 48.50
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits with discount card for 'disadvantage'
47.48
47.48
47.26
40.00
30.50
30.00
27.54
24.88
19.30
20.00
16.16
16.71
12.96
13.93
10.63
9.22
10.00
7.23
8.13
6.81
4.27
2.47
1.16
1.16
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 27.54
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
17

% visits female
80
80
80
73
69
70
63
63
63
60
60
56
56
56
54
52
51
52
49
50
47
41
40
35
30
30
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 72
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years disabled ÷ % catchment population 60+ years disabled
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.07
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
18

% visits unemployed
13.77
13.77
10.00
7.11
6.25
5.47
4.91
5.00
3.00
2.55
2.55
1.58
1.72
1.62
1.85
0.80
1.06
1.17
1.14
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.83
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% cost recovery
164
150
140
136
113
110
101
103
96
100
80
80
75
71
66
58
51
47
50
36
27
27
27
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 37
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
19

Subsidy per visit (£) - 2
-1.92
-1.52
-1.52
-0.39
-0.37
-0.03
-0.09
0.11
0.00
0.60
0.84
0.98
0.87
1.09
1.46
1.85
1.85
2.00
3.65
4.00
4.92
4.92
4.92
6.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.55
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
-367
-321
-200
-26
-30
-2
-6
10
0
55
84
82
82
105
121
142
147
200
284
363
363
363
400
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 245
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
-40.00
-20.00
-17.84
-8.84
-4.42
-3.23
-0.21
-1.75
1.71
0.00
4.08
4.18
6.42
6.89
9.02
8.77
14.85
14.13
19.55
19.19
20.00
26.40
30.23
40.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 10.67
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 (£)
1.68
1.68
1.96
1.78
2.00
2.46
3.03
2.90
3.13
3.63
3.64
4.17
4.15
4.00
4.90
4.79
5.45
5.45
6.00
6.44
6.79
8.26
8.00
10.00
10.45
12.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 4.03
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
99
147
124
208
186
230
279
297
310
310
393
405
405
405
475
500
802
1000
1063
1238
1238
1500
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 387
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
1
10
6
11
9
17
14
14
10
27
27
27
35
50
71
68
100
150
156
156
200
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
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. (£)
6
4
4
15
19
17
19
27
26
27
32
29
36
39
37
39
50
100
138
138
137
138
150
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 37
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
7.83
7.83
6.35
6.00
4.58
4.13
4.00
3.79
3.52
3.05
2.79
2.80
2.61
2.68
2.39
2.23
1.80
2.00
1.50
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.48
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
23

Total income per sq. m. (£)
1431
1431
1123
1000
876
500
423
423
323
344
248
274
226
190
137
127
153
139
67
67
66
46
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 142
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Direct income per visit (£)
7.79
7.79
7.79
6.00
5.58
4.43
3.86
4.00
3.40
3.29
2.51
2.65
2.47
2.39
2.12
2.12
2.04
2.00
1.59
1.48
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.33
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
24

Secondary income per visit (£)
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.00
0.72
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.43
0.31
0.25
0.21
0.16
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.14
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Annual visits per sq. m. - 2
355
355
350
301
300
200
136
117
103
102
100
89
88
87
64
64
64
70
45
31
23
23
16
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 96
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
For this indicator, total indoor floor space is used
25

% visits casual, instead of organised
96
96
96
90
87
84
83
80
80
80
76
74
74
71
70
61
61
60
43
40
37
20
16
11
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 47
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Weekly number of people visiting the facility, as % of catchment population
65.24
60.00
40.00
22.19
22.97
20.00
16.33
10.83
11.01
11.18
7.50
7.98
8.71
7.92
5.84
4.31
5.59
5.59
4.66
1.31
1.53
1.31
0.59
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 10.13
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
11 4.51 322
4 4.27 316
7
0.24
b.
Ease of booking
10 4.52 309
9 4.08 295
1
0.44
c.
The activity charge/fee
13 4.45 317
5 4.17 308
8
0.28
d.
The range of activities available
14 4.40 306
8 4.13 301
6
0.27
Quality of facilities/services
g.
Quality of equipment
8 4.56 215
11 3.98 156
-3
0.58
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.67 319
7 4.13 317
-6
0.54
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3 4.65 316
12 3.95 312
-9
0.70
j.
Number of people in the pool
9 4.56 314
10 4.05 313
-1
0.51
l.
Quality of food and drink
16 4.06 291
13 3.80 271
3
0.26
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
5 4.61 329
16 3.54 327
-11
1.07
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4 4.63 319
14 3.73 303
-10
0.90
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
6 4.59 333
1 4.34 330
5
0.25
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.59 333
3 4.31 323
4
0.28
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
2 4.66 309
2 4.33 202
0
0.33
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
12 4.50 323
6 4.15 315
6
0.35
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.12 295
15 3.70 272
0
0.42
Other attributes *
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
4.57
46
N/A
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
4.57
47
N/A
k.
Quality of car parking on site
4.30 315
N/A
t.
Overall satisfaction with visit
N/A
4.11 330
* 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
5 4.61 329
16 3.54 327
-11
1.07
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4 4.63 319
14 3.73 303
-10
0.90
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3 4.65 316
12 3.95 312
-9
0.70
g.
Quality of equipment
8 4.56 215
11 3.98 156
-3
0.58
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.67 319
7 4.13 317
-6
0.54
j.
Number of people in the pool
9 4.56 314
10 4.05 313
-1
0.51
b.
Ease of booking
10 4.52 309
9 4.08 295
1
0.44
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.12 295
15 3.70 272
0
0.42
r.
Value for money of activities
12 4.50 323
6 4.15 315
6
0.35
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
2 4.66 309
2 4.33 202
0
0.33
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.59 333
3 4.31 323
4
0.28
c.
The activity charge/fee
13 4.45 317
5 4.17 308
8
0.28
d.
The range of activities available
14 4.40 306
8 4.13 301
6
0.27
l.
Quality of food and drink
16 4.06 291
13 3.80 271
3
0.26
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
6 4.59 333
1 4.34 330
5
0.25
a.
Activity available at convenient times
11 4.51 322
4 4.27 316
7
0.24
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
5 4.61 329
16 3.54 327
-11
1.07
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4 4.63 319
14 3.73 303
-10
0.90
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3 4.65 316
12 3.95 312
-9
0.70
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.67 319
7 4.13 317
-6
0.54
g.
Quality of equipment
8 4.56 215
11 3.98 156
-3
0.58
j.
Number of people in the pool
9 4.56 314
10 4.05 313
-1
0.51
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.12 295
15 3.70 272
0
0.42
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
2 4.66 309
2 4.33 202
0
0.33
b.
Ease of booking
10 4.52 309
9 4.08 295
1
0.44
l.
Quality of food and drink
16 4.06 291
13 3.80 271
3
0.26
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.59 333
3 4.31 323
4
0.28
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
6 4.59 333
1 4.34 330
5
0.25
r.
Value for money of activities
12 4.50 323
6 4.15 315
6
0.35
d.
The range of activities available
14 4.40 306
8 4.13 301
6
0.27
a.
Activity available at convenient times
11 4.51 322
4 4.27 316
7
0.24
c.
The activity charge/fee
13 4.45 317
5 4.17 308
8
0.28
29

APPENDIX 1:

USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
0 ( 0.0% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
3 ( 0.9% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
0 ( 0.0% )
Martial arts
1 ( 0.3% )
Five-a-side football
0 ( 0.0% )
Gymnastics
1 ( 0.3% )
Basketball or volleyball
0 ( 0.0% )
Other physical activity
1 ( 0.3% )
Swimming or aqua fit
250 ( 73.5% )
A spectator
79 ( 23.2% )
Another type of activity
5 ( 1.5% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
250 ( 100.0% )
Gym/fitness centre
0 ( 0.0% )
Outside facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Main hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Smaller hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Another part of the facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
90
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
113 ( 45.6% )
As an individual user
116 ( 46.8% )
As a member of a club or team
5 ( 2.0% )
Other
14 ( 5.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
92
31

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
8 ( 2.4% )
No
332 ( 97.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
183 ( 55.5% )
2
112 ( 33.9% )
3
19 ( 5.8% )
4
10 ( 3.0% )
5
2 ( 0.6% )
6
0 ( 0.0% )
7
3 ( 0.9% )
8 plus
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
200 ( 59.9% )
6 to 10
108 ( 32.3% )
11 to 15
19 ( 5.7% )
16 to 20
6 ( 1.8% )
21 plus
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
32

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
162 ( 48.5% )
No
172 ( 51.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
92 ( 59.4% )
Other
63 ( 40.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
185
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
254 ( 75.8% )
Straight from work, school or college
67 ( 20.0% )
Other e.g. from shopping
14 ( 4.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
263 ( 78.0% )
Public transport
30 ( 8.9% )
Walked all the way
43 ( 12.8% )
Other, including cycle
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
33

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
65 ( 19.7% )
6-10 minutes
108 ( 32.7% )
11-15 minutes
68 ( 20.6% )
16-20 minutes
30 ( 9.1% )
21-30 minutes
31 ( 9.4% )
31-45 minutes
25 ( 7.6% )
Over 45 minutes
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
127 ( 40.2% )
Fairly satisfied
162 ( 51.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 5.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 2.2% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
24
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
110 ( 37.3% )
Fairly satisfied
131 ( 44.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
31 ( 10.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
13 ( 4.4% )
Very dissatisfied
10 ( 3.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
45
34

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
115 ( 37.3% )
Fairly satisfied
150 ( 48.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
29 ( 9.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
9 ( 2.9% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 1.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
32
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
107 ( 35.5% )
Fairly satisfied
135 ( 44.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
51 ( 16.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.0% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
39
Q12e Satisfaction - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
340
35

Q12f Satisfaction - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
340
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
40 ( 25.6% )
Fairly satisfied
84 ( 53.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
23 ( 14.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 4.5% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
184
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
117 ( 36.9% )
Fairly satisfied
153 ( 48.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
26 ( 8.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
13 ( 4.1% )
Very dissatisfied
8 ( 2.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
36

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
100 ( 32.1% )
Fairly satisfied
146 ( 46.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
33 ( 10.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
17 ( 5.4% )
Very dissatisfied
16 ( 5.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
28
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
110 ( 35.1% )
Fairly satisfied
137 ( 43.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
45 ( 14.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
13 ( 4.2% )
Very dissatisfied
8 ( 2.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
27
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
340
37

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
59 ( 21.8% )
Fairly satisfied
116 ( 42.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
82 ( 30.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
10 ( 3.7% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
69
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
58 ( 17.7% )
Fairly satisfied
151 ( 46.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
49 ( 15.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
46 ( 14.1% )
Very dissatisfied
23 ( 7.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
61 ( 20.1% )
Fairly satisfied
152 ( 50.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
53 ( 17.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
22 ( 7.3% )
Very dissatisfied
15 ( 5.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
37
38

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
167 ( 50.6% )
Fairly satisfied
127 ( 38.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 7.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 1.5% )
Very dissatisfied
7 ( 2.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
146 ( 45.2% )
Fairly satisfied
143 ( 44.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
25 ( 7.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 1.9% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
106 ( 52.5% )
Fairly satisfied
71 ( 35.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14 ( 6.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
8 ( 4.0% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
138
39

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
115 ( 36.5% )
Fairly satisfied
152 ( 48.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
32 ( 10.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 3.5% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 1.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
49 ( 18.0% )
Fairly satisfied
120 ( 44.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
80 ( 29.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
19 ( 7.0% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
68
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
96 ( 29.1% )
Fairly satisfied
188 ( 57.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
34 ( 10.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
9 ( 2.7% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
40

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
189 ( 58.7% )
Fairly important
115 ( 35.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
14 ( 4.3% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
18
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
176 ( 57.0% )
Fairly important
121 ( 39.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 3.6% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
31
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
167 ( 52.7% )
Fairly important
131 ( 41.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
16 ( 5.0% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
41

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
153 ( 50.0% )
Fairly important
126 ( 41.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
23 ( 7.5% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
34
Q13e Importance - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very important
31 ( 67.4% )
Fairly important
10 ( 21.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 10.9% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
294
Q13f Importance - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very important
30 ( 63.8% )
Fairly important
14 ( 29.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
3 ( 6.4% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
293
42

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
131 ( 60.9% )
Fairly important
73 ( 34.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 5.1% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
125
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
225 ( 70.5% )
Fairly important
85 ( 26.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
7 ( 2.2% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
21
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
211 ( 66.8% )
Fairly important
100 ( 31.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
4 ( 1.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
24
43

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
197 ( 62.7% )
Fairly important
97 ( 30.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
18 ( 5.7% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
26
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
135 ( 42.9% )
Fairly important
143 ( 45.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
34 ( 10.8% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
103 ( 35.4% )
Fairly important
112 ( 38.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
68 ( 23.4% )
Fairly unimportant
7 ( 2.4% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
49
44

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
225 ( 68.4% )
Fairly important
89 ( 27.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 0.9% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
216 ( 67.7% )
Fairly important
90 ( 28.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 3.4% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
21
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
212 ( 63.7% )
Fairly important
110 ( 33.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
45

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
209 ( 62.8% )
Fairly important
114 ( 34.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
220 ( 71.2% )
Fairly important
76 ( 24.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 3.9% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
31
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
184 ( 57.0% )
Fairly important
120 ( 37.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
17 ( 5.3% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
46

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
111 ( 37.6% )
Fairly important
114 ( 38.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
64 ( 21.7% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 1.7% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
45
Q14 Gender.
Male
94 ( 28.4% )
Female
237 ( 71.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
257 ( 79.1% )
Mixed
12 ( 3.7% )
Asian or Asian British
44 ( 13.5% )
Black or Black British
12 ( 3.7% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
15
47

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
32 ( 10.2% )
No
282 ( 89.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
26
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
7 ( 2.1% )
20 to 59
277 ( 82.0% )
60 plus
54 ( 16.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
127 ( 38.7% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
80 ( 24.4% )
On government work training programme
1 ( 0.3% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
25 ( 7.6% )
Retired - company / personal pension
12 ( 3.7% )
Retired - state pension only
38 ( 11.6% )
Temporarily unable to work
7 ( 2.1% )
Permanently unable to work
5 ( 1.5% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
2 ( 0.6% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
4 ( 1.2% )
In full-time education (school)
3 ( 0.9% )
Full-time student (college/university)
7 ( 2.1% )
Never worked
16 ( 4.9% )
None of these
1 ( 0.3% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
48

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
128 ( 44.1% )
3
66 ( 22.8% )
4
12 ( 4.1% )
5
27 ( 9.3% )
6 & 7
57 ( 19.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
50
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
B68
125
( 37.3% )
37.3
B69
67
( 20.0% )
57.3
B67
37
( 11.0% )
68.4
B65
25
( 7.5% )
75.8
B62
16
( 4.8% )
80.6
B66
13
( 3.9% )
84.5
B70
13
( 3.9% )
88.4
B18
5
( 1.5% )
89.9
B71
4
( 1.2% )
91.0
B17
3
( 0.9% )
91.9
B64
3
( 0.9% )
92.8
DY4
3
( 0.9% )
93.7
B21
2
( 0.6% )
94.3
B32
2
( 0.6% )
94.9
DY2
2
( 0.6% )
95.5
DY3
2
( 0.6% )
96.1
WS10
2
( 0.6% )
96.7
B10
1
( 0.3% )
97.0
B19
1
( 0.3% )
97.3
B20
1
( 0.3% )
97.6
B43
1
( 0.3% )
97.9
B63
1
( 0.3% )
98.2
B7O
1
( 0.3% )
98.5
B90
1
( 0.3% )
98.8
B97
1
( 0.3% )
99.1
WR2
1
( 0.3% )
99.4
49

WS5
1
( 0.3% )
99.7
WV2
1
( 0.3% )
100.0
Missing/Not applicable
5
50