For: The Trustees of the Bath Recreation Ground |
RECREATION GROUND, BATH STRATEGIC REVIEW REPORT OF CONSULTATION |
Jeff Bishop BDOR Limited February 2007 |
CONTENTS
Section |
Page |
1. Introduction |
2 |
2. Context |
3 |
3. Setting Up |
4 |
4. Activities and Results |
7 |
5. Evaluation of the Process |
32 |
6. Conclusions |
35 |
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This report focuses solely on the process put in place to consult on the future of the Recreation Ground (The Rec) in Bath, and the results of that process. It stands alone, independent of other elements of the work that have contributed to the overall Strategic Review on the future of The Rec.
1.2. The report is in two parts of which this is the first. This part sets the scene, describes the process in broad terms, focusing on the overall pattern of work, the main activities and the flow from initial issues to the final results. It finishes with two evaluation sections, one on the process, the other drawing together the overall or summary results and commenting on their robustness.
1.3. The second part is backed by a `Full File' (and CD) that contains specific and full reports from workshops and surveys, as well as letters received, details of publicity, the website etc. This is all the verbatim, raw material to which this part is the Summary.
1.4. The report as a whole was put together by Jeff Bishop of BDOR Limited. Jeff was appointed by the Trustees of The Rec to act independently to undertake and manage the consultation process and to produce this report.
1.5. Where links are made to items in the Full File they are shown as follows: ITEM X
1.6. We have tried, throughout this report, to make every aspect of our work and approach as transparent as possible so that others have enough information from which they can - if they wish - draw their own conclusions. This is particularly the case with the two final evaluation sections which are patently our own distillation of the facts as they present themselves.
2. CONTEXT
2.1. During 2006 the Trustees of The Rec, acting on the advice of officers of Bath and North East Somerset Council, committed to undertaking a Strategic Review of the future of The Rec. The background to the overall Strategic Review is better described in other documents; only items particularly relevant to consultation are highlighted here.
2.2. At the outset of the review it was felt to be important, and the Charity Commission confirmed this in principle, that any proposals or draft scheme submitted to the Commission for them to test against the conditions of the conveyance should be shown to have wide public support. At the same time, the Commission made clear that public support for a particular option could not be used to override something that they considered in breach of the legally-based terms of the conveyance.
2.3. This report is about the consultation work undertaken to establish public and stakeholder views on possible future options. In the light of the comment above, its results will be used by those managing the overall Strategic Review when drawing up their final conclusions,
2.4. The consultation work did not emerge `out of the blue' as a fresh initiative. The issue of the future of The Rec, and Bath Rugby's use of it in particular, has had a high profile within and around Bath for some years, almost irrespective of the uncertainty over the Trust. Press coverage shows that the issues were known about and of concern to many within the city and well beyond. It is also clear that there are issues which have generated significant divides in terms of possible future solutions, and perhaps `more heat than light'. All this was true even before the Strategic Review began.
2.5. This high level of public awareness and the existence of some clearly polarised views was one reason why officers advising the Trust recommended the appointment of an independent, external consultant to run the consultation exercise. The other important reason was because no such skills or capacity were available amongst the Council officers themselves.
2.6. On the basis of general experience, recommendations by others and the outcome of previous work in Bath, Jeff Bishop of BDOR Limited was approached about undertaking the consultation process. After some discussions with officers about likely programme and costs, Jeff Bishop was appointed at the end of July 2006. (For some background information on Jeff Bishop in terms of experience of consultation and related work, see ITEM 1.)
2.7. The basic brief was extremely straightforward. The aim was to find out what the people of Bath (and others, see later) wanted to see happen on The Rec in the future. However giving people `a blank sheet of paper' would not be a constructive way of ascertaining people's opinions given that the range of options was already limited (albeit with many variations on a theme). We have already commented on the fact that the Charity Commission could never treat consultation results as determining something more properly determined by law, but also that clear support for a particular option that met the terms of the conveyance would give that option greater weight. It was therefore agreed that the consultation would be based around options that it was felt (at that time) had some chance of being developed up in ways that could meet the terms of the conveyance.
2.8. The brief was also subject to further constraint for three reasons. First, because the obvious polarisation of local views was such that it seemed likely that individuals or organisations would challenge the outcomes of the Review in the courts no matter which option was supported. This demanded a very high level of care and rigour on all aspects of the Review, including the consultation.
2.9. Secondly, it also seemed very likely (and proved to be the case) that others would initiate their own consultation processes or related activities (eg. petitions) in parallel with the `official` process. This again demanded great care and rigour if the official process was not to be undermined. It was therefore necessary to set some clear ground rules about how others might undertake their own work and do all possible to ensure that these were followed (for the benefit of both parties) and that the results could be given the most appropriate weight
2.10. Thirdly, there was also likely to be another, almost opposite version of this parallel activity. It was expected (and this too happened) that some groups or people might choose to have absolutely nothing to do with the consultation and assume that (as they saw it) this would strengthen their hand should a later challenge be thought necessary. Beyond making strong efforts to avoid this through encouraging participation by direct communication, there was little else that could be done.
2.11. The other contextual factor mentioned by some as work proceeded was the fact that some aspects of charity law were at that time subject to change because of the Charities Bill. In all cases where this was mentioned it was assumed that this would create more scope and flexibility. We cannot comment here on whether that is correct or not.
2.12. In the light of the above it should be noted that the Trustees took no part in any of the events and did not shape, or influence in any way at all, the database, questionnaires or any other part of the work.
3. SETTING UP
3.1. Initial Outline Process
3.1.1. After considerable background reading and briefing by officers, Jeff Bishop produced an initial outline of the proposed process. There are no consistent, agreed and widely used principles in the public domain for consultation, and certainly none for this particular type of process. Nevertheless, such principles exist and, though often using different phrasing, examining a number of them from across the public policy spectrum would generate a reasonably consistent set.
3.1.2. Perhaps the best specific example, however, with some clear relevance to the situation for The Rec, comes from the recently reformed planning system. This certainly provides not only a clear set of principles but carries them through in supportive procedures and guidance to, for example, a requirement to produce reports such as this and setting rigid standards for consultation periods. It was therefore decided to draw mainly from (but not copy) the approaches now used in the planning system to shape the process. What follows is therefore not one person's invention; it has its roots in well-proven practice.
3.1.3. The principles were included in Jeff Bishop's first proposals to the Trustees. They were, at that time:
3.1.4. In general these have remained the principles and will be used towards the end of this report to help evaluate the process. The only variation worth mentioning at this stage (and explained more fully later) is that the consultation was not limited only to 'the people of Bath'.
3.1.5. In summary, the process described in this initial outline was as follows:
Stage 1: Setting Up
1A. Meeting some 'Key Actors' separately as groups/organisations who are current users of, or have some sort of main stake in, the Recreation Ground. The aim of this stage was to discuss, if necessary amend and then agree a final process.
1B. Meeting the key actors together, if necessary and time allowed, to secure any final agreement.
Stage 2: From Options To Option
2A. Public announcement of the process and setting up a website.
2B. Running a 'Stakeholder Workshop' with key actors and a wider group of those with some form of major interest. The aim was to bring people fully up to speed about the complexities, scope and opportunities of the current situation, debate and agree a range of possible options for future use and management of The Rec - the draft of the list to be used in later stages.
2C. A technical check on emerging options in terms of legal, financial, operational, planning and other issues. The aim was to ensure that options included in the questionnaire were potentially deliverable. This is the work undertaken by Ernst & Young.
2D. Producing, promoting, circulating and analysing the results of a questionnaire mainly about the suggested main options. Points were made about moving beyond this to access what are often termed `hard to reach' groups.
2E. A final check of results with the original key actors and perhaps some further detailed technical checks.
2F. Promoting the emerging outcome through the website, media etc.
Stage 3: Finalising
3A. A second workshop was only included as a fail-safe measure if the results at that stage proved unclear or particular aspects required further stakeholder consideration.
3B. Key actor sign-off to be secured on the draft version of this report.
3C. Producing a final Report of Consultation as here.
3.2. Database
3.2.1. In consultation generally, and now very demandingly in the planning system, care is needed in establishing who to consult. This work was therefore started at the very outset but was continued throughout all the early stages to ensure a wide and robust database for the questionnaire work in particular; (though this stage also included making the questionnaire available to `everybody'). As will be seen, the questionnaire was eventually divided into three main formats with different target groups. This is best explained at the relevant stage later in this report. Information to build the database was requested and received from a number of groups and organisations, not solely the Council, existing users or Bath Rugby. The main database is in the Full File as ITEM 2. This also shows who was contacted, invited to events, returned questionnaires etc.
3.2.2. Bath and North East Somerset Council are of course on the database. Although some officers attended the Stakeholder Workshop, comments at that event were not attributed. Though they had to be invited to complete a questionnaire (quite correctly), the authority declined to do so (also quite correctly).
3.2.3. The only other comment to make at this time is about the general geographic scope of the consultation. At the outset it was suspected that the consultation should be limited to the citizens of Bath because they were thought to be the sole 'beneficiaries'; (and despite complications over defining `Bath' since 1956!). It was thought better to play safe at that stage and, if appropriate, enlarge later. It was decided later that no geographic limitation should apply, (though see results for geographic breakdowns). As currently understood, a beneficiary is primarily anyone who has use of the Trust's assets and as such any individual or organisation capable of or interested in using The Rec for appropriate activities or events.
3.3. Reaching a Final Agreed Version
3.3.1. The first outline was discussed with key actors at meetings with each person separately. As there was clearly very strong agreement to what was proposed, and only a few changes were suggested, the `key actors together' stage was omitted. Those met or spoken to included representatives of:
3.3.2. Despite letters and telephone calls, and an agreed meeting for which someone did not arrive, it was not possible to secure input from the Friends of the Bath Residents' Recreation Ground. They had been on the original list because one of their number had become well known for some years for writing letters to the Council and the local papers etc. about all aspects of The Rec and the Trust. Not only that but by all accounts they represented a strand of opinion very different to that most commonly seen in the public domain. Their involvement would have been greatly valued but they were one group who presumably felt that their future position was best reserved by staying outside the process. Unless responding confidentially (eg. to the questionnaire) they had no involvement at all at any stage. The Full File contains several ITEMS 3 which record the attempts to secure the engagement of the 'Friends' (as they are usually known).
3.3.3. The final, agreed process that emerged at this stage is in the Full File as ITEM 4. In essence it is very similar to the process described earlier (and changed again during implementation as will be seen and explained).
3.3.4. The results of this process were shared at a meeting between Jeff Bishop and representatives of the Charity Commission. It was inappropriate to ask for agreement to it but the impression was given that this would be a suitable and robust approach to use in supporting any proposals. (The notes of this meeting are in the Full File as ITEM 5.)
3.4. Management
3.4.1. Although the consultation work was managed independently, this did not mean that there was no contact between Jeff Bishop and others involved in the Strategic Review. It was essential to meet regularly (including with those from Ernst and Young) to ensure the process was coherently managed and progressing properly and in particular with the Bath and North East Somerset Council press and media team who, for example, drafted and sent out press releases. Details of the questionnaire content and who might receive them were also discussed at these meetings, at which Jeff Bishop always made clear that final decisions were his and his alone.
4. ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS
4.1. Stakeholder Workshop
Format
4.1.1. Adapted directly from the aims of this event as outlined in the agreed process description, the aims as presented to possible participants in the invitation to the Stakeholder Workshop were as follows:
The aim of this event, apart from ensuring that all are up to speed with the history, context, parameters etc., is to generate 3 or 4 different options for the future of The Rec and suggest their varied benefits and disbenefits. Ideally, all options should in particular meet the terms of the current Trust - the challenging issue which has triggered the current Review.
4.1.2. The participants were drawn from the developing database as representing (but not formally) a number of strands of interest and involvement in The Rec, its activities, impacts and future. The final database (ITEM 2) shows all those who were invited to the workshop.
4.1.3. All those booking in were sent, shortly before the workshop, a Briefing Paper (ITEM 6 in the Full File) which, following an Introduction setting some parameters for the event, outlined the context of the Strategic Review and consultation as a whole, set the scene for the event (aims and broad format/programme) and offered some `prompts' towards possible aspects to consider. The latter were drawn from discussions with colleagues, clients and key actors.
4.1.4. The proposed programme for the workshop covered the following:
Response
4.1.5. 29 people booked in out of 51 invitees. On the night, 3 people sent apologies so there were 25 participants. This could have been 26 but the representative of the Friends of the Bath Residents' Recreation Ground (hereafter called the Friends) had asked if he could attend solely to observe. He was informed that any decision about that would rest with the group as a whole. Perhaps for that reason, he did not attend. The workshop was facilitated by Jeff Bishop with support from group facilitators. One Trust officer also attended.
4.1.6. The workshop took place in Bath on the evening of 1st November 2006. The programme worked generally as proposed, although there was no time for a separate final evaluation section. This mattered little in the end because most groups had produced some form of `pros and cons' during their group work to develop options.
Summary and Results
4.1.7. Summarising such workshops is difficult, especially as this was not done fully at the event. A full report was produced, including everything generated on paper throughout the evening. The report is ITEM 7 in the Full File. Although it is best to read the full report, some summary points are as follows.
4.1.8. On arrival, participants were asked to list key issues and concerns. Clustering similar issues together generated some main themes. Those themes, in descending order of number of mentions per theme, were:
4.1.9. In terms of what were called the ingredients, the list used in the briefing was supported, although most groups qualified or added detail on some aspects. The list given out was:
1. Terms/Objects*
2. Timeframe
3. Definition of Land
4. Relocation
5. Rebalance Uses
6. Management
7. Redesign (all to be to World Heritage Site standards)
* This was included here, but solely to suggest to people that this was not a focus of the consultation so they should either not cover it at all or avoid spending much time on it.
4.1.10. Some additional points were made by participants outside the scope of the given items:
4.1.11. Some of the above points were picked up again in the final main stage, to develop overall `recipes' or options. As before, the groups were offered an initial prompt of 3 possible options. The text for these was as follows:
1. Remove the two most contentious uses - rugby and the leisure centre - and introduce new and different activities that are all charitable or voluntary (not professional) and do not require major buildings.
2. Find ways of adapting the uses and organisations there now such that they diversify, uses are better balanced, private and public benefit are better balanced, negative local impacts are reduced and there is minimal change through construction of new (but very well designed) facilities.
3. Look at ways of more significantly redeveloping the Rec as a whole to improve diversity and balance of uses, manage or remove the most contentious uses, reduce negative impacts on neighbours and build new facilities that meet the design standards of a World Heritage Site.
4.1.12. All groups developed and qualified within and around these options. No significantly new option emerged within the general scope of the parameters for the options. (Progress with the options is described below.)
4.2. Surveys as a Whole
4.2.1. In the finally agreed process (ITEM 4) it was suggested that several slightly different formats would be used for the questionnaire stage. This had evolved, following discussion with the key actors and clients, from the initial proposal which had suggested a single questionnaire. It then evolved further as more technical discussions took place about control, sample numbers, geographical scope and so forth. Final decisions were also influenced by the fact that other parallel, consultation-related activity was underway (see later), requiring the `official' consultation to be especially robust. Despite this evolution, the approach as delivered was entirely consistent in aims and principles with that discussed and agreed with the key actors.
4.2.2. As is commonly the case with a mixed approach to consultation, there was a need to balance between three almost mutually exclusive criteria:
4.2.3. In general, significant quantity is only achieved by asking a few quick questions, and demanding a high level of control is linked to relatively low numbers (as is greater depth). The aim on this occasion was to optimise with a range of approaches. The three main survey formats used (comments follow later on hard-to-reach groups) were as follows:
These formats can be related to the key criteria as follows:
Criterion Format |
Quantity |
Depth |
Control |
|
Sample survey |
Good |
Reasonable |
Very good |
|
Open survey |
Very good |
Varied |
Limited |
|
Stakeholder survey |
Limited |
Good |
Good |
This shows that no single format is `best' - they each balance the criteria differently. However, it also illustrates the potential value of using a variety of methods together.
4.2.4. A mix built on the strong base of a sample survey was chosen. It was clear that key stakeholders also needed to be contacted because they were, between them, acting in some way as `representative' of very large numbers. In addition, some form of open questionnaire was indispensable for such a high profile public issue. From here on we describe each format in more detail.
4.2.5. To assist the reader and avoid constant reference to other material, we conclude this section with a description of the main choices - the Options - that formed the core of the various surveys. This text, in italics below, is drawn straight from that used in the open and stakeholder questionnaires (with some introductory comments removed). The sample survey used the common Options text but varied the lead-in information.
The options are all different, but whatever approach moves forward must recognise that the Recreation Ground is an integral part of a world heritage city and both an asset for visitors and residents and a contributor to the local economy through the many and varied events that take place there. It should therefore aim to
Those in the stakeholder group workshop felt that, to deliver any of the options successfully, the Trust probably needs to be more open and transparent, more clearly separated from the Council and more proactive. In order to manage what may be a more complex future, it was also felt that the Trust may well need to do as many other charities do and set up some form of `trading arm' under charity law.
The three options follow overleaf. In each case there is a description of the option and then a list of implications (or `pros and cons') to help you in reaching your conclusions about each, and then a preference. As well as being informed by the stakeholder group, the implications have been informed by a quick overview by the Ernst and Young team to check technical and financial aspects. Though diagrams/plans have not been produced for each option, it can be useful to refer to the attached site map.
OPTION 1: MINIMAL IMPACT USES
Description
Implications
OPTION 2: VARIATIONS TO THE CURRENT USAGE
Description
Implications
OPTION 3: SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Description
Implications
4.2.6. The above Options were in general very similar to those introduced at the Stakeholder Workshop and which that group broadly endorsed. As stated earlier, no genuinely distinctive fourth or fifth option emerged at the workshop. However, a number of the points made by participants were valuable in informing the common aims (eg. respecting the World Heritage Site context), the option descriptions and the implications of each in the text above. (The workshop also raised a number of issues that more properly belong `downstream' from this stage, as and when specific proposals or designs begin to be developed eg. detailed design.) Finally, there was also a need to ensure that the points were genuinely equitable and balanced between options and that the phrasing should be such that no bias should exist or be thought to exist between them.
4.3. Sample Survey
4.3.1. Having decided that there had to be some form of completely open survey to `all', and given the inevitable concerns about limited control that this can produce in any situation (and extremely strongly in this particular situation), it was felt that some other form of rigorous and highly controlled survey was needed. This is a specialist activity so, following a tendering process with three possible sub-contractors, BMG were selected to manage this stage.
4.3.2. At the initial discussions with BDOR and the clients' officers, it was decided that a sample base of 1,000 households would be most appropriate. By that point it was also clear that there was no geographical limit on the beneficiaries of the Trust so it was considered appropriate to include a percentage of respondents (20%) from beyond Bath itself but still within the overall B&NES area. BMG's judgement was accepted for the most appropriate mix of household/interviewee categories and on total sub-samples for each group (eg. women under a given age). Although all respondents were asked about their direct involvement with The Rec (eg. whether they were regular users of the Leisure Centre) such aspects were not used as sub-sample determinants.
4.3.3. The core of the questionnaire was reactions to the 3 main options. The text used was identical to that used in all other official surveys (see later). The other surveys included fuller background and briefing information to assist people in making their choices, and they contained more questions about the reasons behind people's choices. To balance this, however, the sample survey questionnaire asked a number of contextual questions about the respondent, what they knew already about the issue and where from, what use if any they made of The Rec and so forth.
4.3.4. Because of the need to prepare this work extremely carefully and pilot it locally, the field work was not started until mid January 2007. It was completed by the end of January with all quotas complete and no fundamental queries about approach, methodology, question terminology etc.
Results
4.3.5. This section draws out only the headline or key results. ITEM 8 in the Full File is the final report from BMG. That report includes the full questionnaire. The questions covered three main aspects:
4.3.6. Although these questions were spread out across the questionnaire, we present the key results from each in the above sequence. Percentages are rounded up or down in this text, on some occasions do not total 100% because of non responses, and on others they exceed 100% because more than one answer could be given.
4.3.7. The Sample
4.3.8. Contextual Questions
4.3.9. Choice of Option
In terms of the basic choice between Options 1, 2 and 3, and excluding those who did not support any, could not choose or felt they did not know enough to decide (26% of all respondents), the overall choices were as follows:
Response percent |
Response total | |
Option 1 |
13% |
93 |
Option 2 |
56% |
420 |
Option 3 |
31% |
233 |
This means that 87% of those who made a choice support an option that involves retention of professional rugby and the Leisure Centre on the site.
The main reasons given for a choice of Option 1 were:
Far and away the only significant response in terms of reasons given for a choice of Option 2 was the retention of Bath Rugby on The Rec, from 85% of respondents.
Although retention of rugby as such was not offered as a reason to favour Option 3, that can probably be taken as read. Other specific main reasons given were:
A follow-up and related question verified the above by asking what aspect was most significant in the choices given, as did supplementary questions about aspects with which people were less happy in their chosen option - ie. reverse results were received.
67% of people stated that they would make more use of The Rec if their chosen option was implemented. However the variation in results in terms of use of The Rec in summer and winter suggests that, on the current regime, only the fireworks event would attract considerable numbers in the winter if rugby etc, were not sports played there during the winter.
4.3.10. With such a carefully controlled process, the consultants were also able to generate a large number of cross-tabulations, for example to check variations in awareness and option choice between men and women. The following are some key points only from this analysis that have relevance to overall results. The key comparisons used were between men and women and across different age groups. Although data was collected on economic status, ethnicity etc., this showed no significant variations in responses. It must be remembered that
Contextual points
Favouring options
Queries with options
4.4. Stakeholder Survey
4.4.1. From the outset it had been decided that some form of questionnaire-based survey should be done with a group of key stakeholders. The intention was to seek responses from organisations, leaving it largely to them as to how they might generate a (single) response.
4.4.2. The database includes various headings for the worksheets. These were the headings used to develop, classify and then target the groups. The headings were:
4.4.3. The users list was as provided by the managers in B&NES Council. The list of immediate resident groups was as agreed with the key actors. The City-wide residents groups were those groups which are members of the Federation. A request was made to B&NES for information on other residents' or tenants' groups but no response was received. The business sector was accessed via the Chamber; there was not (at that time) any local group representing small businesses/traders. The list of sport and recreation groups and heritage/environment groups were provided by B&NES officers. We have no reason to suppose that there were any omissions from these lists of significance to the final results.
4.4.4. Each organisation was sent a `pack' of material (ITEMS 9 in the Full File) which incorporated:
4.4.5. These questionnaires were distributed early in December 2006 and people were asked to return them by 15th January. Almost immediately a response was received from Bath and North East Somerset Council - the `public sector' - stating that, for probity reasons, it was considered inappropriate for them to respond. This was no surprise, though it had been decided in advance to give them the opportunity.
Results
4.4.6. ITEM 10 in the Full File includes three levels of analysis of results, from raw material to final analysis. Key points from this analysis follow below.
CATEGORY |
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 |
No Option |
For Leisure Centre |
For Bath Rugby | |
City-wide Residents |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
Heritage/Environment |
4 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
Immediate Residents |
5 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
Private |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Sport/Recreation |
6 |
1 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
0 |
6 |
5 |
Users |
9 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
6 |
Other |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Totals |
32 |
4.5 |
17 |
8.5 |
2 |
26 |
28 |
* 0.5 given to 2 option choices from same questionnaire
Numbers in the 2 right hand columns do not add up because some people chose not to respond, or gave ambiguous responses.
4.4.7. City Wide Residents
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 2 - Continuation of rugby on the Rec without major and intrusive development |
Improvements/Concerns - Some caution expressed over what other activities may be permitted - ie, no noisy rock concerts - More than just the Somerset County Cricket Club Bath Festival returned to the Rec - Facilities could be improved in Option 2 - We were a bit thrown by the theoretical, non-costed nature of the Options and by the elasticity of the area and amenities they covered |
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 3 - Most likely option to serve the best interests of the city in the future - As long as the terms under which the Council act as Trustee permit it - If the money is available |
Improvements/Concerns - Concern over how Option 3 might be financed |
4.4.8. Heritage/Environment
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 1 - Rugby could continue to be played at the Rec |
Improvements/Concerns - Money should be spent on improving/updating all of the Rec's facilities |
Main reasons for Choice - Option 3 - Rugby should continue to be played at the Rec Ground x 2 - There is a significant increase in visitor numbers to the museum on home match days - Support for Option 3 depends upon the design solution being of a quality fitting to its site |
Improvements/Concerns - Everything will depend on the quality of what is proposed - Underground parking - Concert and open air facilities - A better outlook for people living in the area - The present buildings do little for a world heritage city |
4.4.9. Immediate Residents
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 2 - Do not wish to see Bath Rugby moved away from Bath - Fits best with the time frame available and is the most practical solution - Leisure Centre is an extremely important focal point for sport in Bath and easily accessible |
Improvements/Concerns - Controversy regarding the legal side of the deed of covenant for the Rec causes problems - Charities Commission should be asked to make a statement - More detailed information on the volume and height of new stands should be provided - New stands should not obstruct the view of Bath - How long will the increased capacity be sufficient? - Parking problems - Lack of information regarding funding - Access routes - Impact on flooding by any construction work - Is it necessary to make the expenditure required to redevelop these facilities when the current facilities are so good |
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 3 - It's more realistic than 1 or 2 and more comprehensive - It sensibly meets the wishes of most people |
Improvements/Concerns - If the time scale prejudices Bath Rugby Club's time scale to remain in Bath, which is an issue, Option 2 would be preferable |
4.4.10. Private
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 2 - Members of the Initiative for B&NES and the Bath Chamber of Commerce are interested in the long term sustainable future of the area and are mindful of the original intention that the Rec should be used for the benefit of the whole community - The continued existence of the Rugby Club in Bath is an important complement to the cultural strengths of the city |
Improvements/Concerns No comments |
4.4.11. Sport/Recreation
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 1 - The Rec Ground should be reserved for outdoor voluntary or community sports groups - Bath RFC should finance its own stadium elsewhere |
Improvements/Concerns No comments |
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 2 - Support the retention of Rugby on the Rec - Support the improvement, updating and extension of Bath Rugby's facilities and lease - Support the provision of a new sports complex on the site - Support greater use of Bath Rugby's facilities for a wider range of activities - Minimal disruption from what exists at present - Scheme can be delivered quickly and phased - Would not be a cost to local tax payers - Funded by Rugby Club - The new facilities would meet Premiership standards within the time scale required |
Improvements/Concerns - We would like to see consideration given to a new athletic track within the design of any new stadium - Bath Rugby have a poor past track record of sharing facilities with other users of the Rec - May be in breach of the Covenant by the Charity Commission, but keeps the open space that can be used for other sports by the public - Hopefully, when a decision is reached, there will be no further suggestion that this can be challenged in any High Court action |
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 3 - Support the retention of Rugby on the Rec - Support the improvement, updating and extension of Bath Rugby's facilities and lease - Support the provision of a new sports complex on the site - Compatible with the existing covenant - Best option for improvement in facilities - Will encourage recreational use by children and young people |
Improvements/Concerns - Vehicle access will continue to be required from both current access point - We support measures to improve the viability of the Somerset Cricket Festival - Providing the creation of a more distinct cricket area does not compromise the viability of the half marathon, or other major events on the Rec - The city lacks a world class auditorium |
4.4.12. Users
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 1 - Potential for `opening out' the Rec to the river front - It honours the spirit of the original donation of the Trust, for the use of all Bath citizens. - Bath Rugby is NOT a club - it is a professional money-making organisation, not an amateur one. It has outgrown the space given it, both on the site and on the neighbouring area - We believe that Option 1 is the only proposed option that reflects both the spirit, and letter, of the original conveyance |
Improvements/Concerns - Demolition of the Pavilion - We understand that the current Leisure Centre breaks the terms of the original conveyance, but have to question whether there is room to build a new Leisure Centre on the site along North Parade Road |
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 2 - It is achievable within a workable timeframe, and appears to have a good change of being financially viable - We are of the opinion the existing facilities as used by the Bath Rugby Club could be enhanced - Retains Bath Rugby's involvement as a major sporting / cultural / economic player in maintaining a vibrant City of Bath. - Also retains Bath Rugby's significant financial support for local charities - Also, the Forever Friends Appeal will be able to continue with staging major fundraising concerts - Probably the least amount of ongoing disruption to the use of the Rec by all the existing users |
Improvements/Concerns - Disagree with the selling of land on which leisure centre is located - Alternatively, if leisure centre is demolished, then it should be rebuilt on the new Riverside area to relieve transport and parking problems. - The existing stand on the river side of the pitch could be demolished and rebuilt as an enlarged multi-tier stand sufficient to accommodate the additional spectator numbers required, understood to be about 3,000 - Disagree with the selling of land on which the Leisure Centre is located - who owns it? - Also disagree with demolition and rebuilding of the Centre. If it is demolished, then it should be rebuilt elsewhere - such as the Riverside. - It is very doubtful that any other Cricket Club would take over management of the cricket activities. - Any additional land required by Bath Rugby must not adversely affect our continuing use of the croquet lawns and our allocated car parking space. - Bath Rugby must be made to realise that there are other legitimate and rightful users of the Rec |
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 3 - The sports centre to be demolished - it could be combined into a single complex with a new stadium offering world class facilities - Bath Rugby simply have to remain playing at the Rec - to move out of Bath would kill the Club. |
Improvements/Concerns - Sports and recreation uses should be utilised at the Rec throughout the year - We should be ambitious in our approach to a redevelopment - Cricket pavilion to be demolished and rebuilt with modern facilities - One cricket team to manage a cricket area will impact on the Ram CC's and other clubs' ability to play on the Rec when we want |
4.4.13. Other
Main Reasons for Choice - Option 3 - The high quality of facilities will act as a focus to encourage and inspire greater and varied recreational use by grass-root sports - This option is compatible with a modern interpretation (cy-pres) of the existing Covenant in the context of the new Charity Act |
Improvements/Concerns - The City lacks a world class auditorium with an audience capacity of ca.500. |
4.4.14. With such a small sample number, conclusions must be drawn with caution - which is why the emphasis in the above material is on the summary comments rather than basic choices. Nevertheless the overall preference is clearly for Option 2, followed by Option 3 then Option 1. The sole exception to this pattern was the user groups. They still preferred Option 1 but, for 3 of those groups, Option 1 was a preference.
4.4.15. Comments in favour of Option 2 focused mainly on retention of Bath Rugby but also retention, in that general location, of the Leisure Centre. Points were made in favour of Option 2 about the value to the city (tradition, economy, vitality etc.) of having rugby at The Rec and, in comparison to Option 3 that also retains rugby, about the (assumed) better deliverability of Option 2. User views included such comments but gave greater precedence to ensuring a wider and more balanced use of The Rec.
4.4.16. Cautionary comments about Option 2 concerned the likelihood or otherwise of securing Charity Commission support, the prospect of drawing County cricket back to the site and ensuring varied and balanced uses in the future. Points in favour of Option 3 tended to focus on its more ambitious, long term and holistic approach, though that prompted parallel concerns about delivering this Option.
4.5. Open Survey
4.5.1. Despite concerns about control, an `open to all' questionnaire was absolutely essential in the context at the time. The next decisions were about how to design this to minimise possible abuse and maximise any potential control, and how much information and how many questions to include (given that more of both can reduce response rates). Further issues were then raised about how to publicise and circulate this format.
4.5.2. As a matter of principle in order to enable the maximum level of comparison between the results of all three surveys, the core options and basic questions had to be common. That immediately dictated a basic amount of information (more than is often given for open questionnaires) and a few key questions (less than are often asked in questionnaires). To an extent this was viewed as a minimal form of quality `sieve'; anybody filling in the questionnaire would find it difficult (but not impossible) to complete without considering a reasonable amount of information. It was also considered that the high profile of the issue within Bath would encourage more people to read more than might usually be expected. A few key moderator questions were also asked; for example about attendance at Bath Rugby matches or use of the Leisure Centre.
4.5.3. It was therefore decided that the basic `pack' should be as used for the stakeholder survey but with a few different closing questions in the questionnaire about the respondent. It was however accepted that not everybody would read the background and briefing material. As the pack is mostly as in the other survey ITEM 11 in the Full File is just the different questionnaire.
4.5.4. Once the format had been decided, the next issues were promotion and distribution. Promotion was done mainly through the local media, stakeholder groups (encouraged to also ask all members to complete their own questionnaire) and the website. There were three main formats for response:
4.5.5. This material went out early in December 2006 and people were asked to respond by 15th January 2007. Reminders went out via the media and website in early January given the Christmas and New Year break.
Results
4.5.6. This section draws out only the headline or key results. The full report of results is included in the Full File as ITEM 12.
4.5.7. There were 2,562 responses to the open questionnaire, the majority (82%) being returned online through the website. Almost 50% came from residents with Bath (BA1, BA2, BA3) postcodes, others from further afield including some from other countries. Almost 80% of respondents were male, just over 20% female. The age range was good.
4.5.8. The overall result in terms of choice between the given Options was:
Response percent |
Response total | |
Option 1 |
6.6% |
168 |
Option 2 |
83.1% |
2,112 |
Option 3 |
8.9% |
227 |
None |
1.3% |
34 |
NB. In several cases numbers do not add up to 2,562 and we have rounded up some percentages in this summary.
4.5.9. Breaking down the overall results further generates the following points:
4.5.10. The results report contains full lists of comments made for or against chosen or not chosen Options. What follows is a short summary of those points. This is, by definition, selective.
4.5.11. Key points in favour of Option 1
4.5.12. Key points against Option 1
4.5.13. Key points in favour of Option 2
4.5.14. Key points against Option 2
4.5.15. Key points in favour of Option 3
4.5.16. Key points against Option 3
4.6. Actions by Others
4.6.1. During the consultation period several other groups ran their own consultation or consultation-related activities. (We have not been made aware of anything that happened earlier.) In addition, and closely linked, there were other `campaigning' activities happening through and in the local press (see later). Each of these parallel processes is described separately below. Wherever possible we worked with those managing these other activities to ensure that they could be as valuable as possible as contributions - if unofficial and more marginal - to the overall process
4.6.2. Rugby Supporters' Clubs and The Chronicle
At the very start of the process we were contacted by the two main supporters clubs for Bath Rugby. They wished to work together to run a petition aimed specifically at ensuring that rugby (ie. Bath Rugby in particular) should be able to stay at The Rec. We were informed of this intention by the Bath Rugby club person brought in during the initial key actor stage. We encouraged him to encourage the supporters clubs to contact us, not to stop what they intended to do but to help them to do it in such a way as to maximise the petition's value to the `official' process in order to validate any contribution forthcoming
The clubs had the sense and courtesy to do this and we were able to offer some minimal advice, notably about the phrasing of the key message, and recording postcodes and frequency of attendance at Bath Rugby matches. We also asked them to do all possible to also ask people to complete the official questionnaire. It was also made clear to them (in the light of the three criteria introduced earlier) that the results of such petitions would be attributed limited status. (See the final main section for how this was addressed.)
By this time the supporters' clubs had liaised with the main local paper - the Bath Chronicle - and it had been agreed that they would combine their ambitions to undertake a campaign and prepare a petition. The end result was therefore a joint programme between the two groups and the newspaper.
The groups stayed in contact with BDOR throughout the consultation period to feed back emerging results, to highlight questions they had picked up about the project and even about the main process, and to agree how best to present their results. Once their petition had closed and the analysis had been completed, they issued a press release detailing the procedure and outlining the summary results. Though none of this was actually undertaken by BDOR we have no reason to doubt its accuracy. What follows below (again in italics) is key points from the press release.
The supporters' organisations agreed the following wording for the petition:
`We, the undersigned, believe that the presence of Bath Rugby on the Recreation Ground is an integral part of the fabric of the City and contributes positively to the quality and variety of life in the Council district in many ways. We further believe that Bath Rugby should be enabled and encouraged to develop and improve the facilities on the Recreation Ground in a way that is not only to the benefit of the residents of Bath and the wider community but in keeping with the covenant in the Trust Deed, and that any building should be of a quality and scale that complements and enhances its environment and the status of Bath as a World Heritage City.'
The petition was launched on 23 September 2006, and thereafter signatures were collected inside and outside the Rec on various home match days, and at a number of venues in Bath including: Milsom Street, Morrisons supermarket, the Podium, Sainsburys and Southgate.
An online version of the petition (http://www.gopetition.com/sign.php?petid=9668)
was created, with publicity and links from the Bath Chronicle (www.thisisbath.co.uk), BRSC and ERE websites.
The Bath Chronicle also provided editorial exposure for the petition publishing the petition in the paper on a number of occasions, giving readers the opportunity to assess the issue in detail.
The attached table gives the key data from the survey. This data has been collected by:
- `sorting' of the Excel database which was extracted from the online survey;
- keying in the postcodes of all those who signed hard copies of the petition, `sorting' these within Excel, and counting those in the various postcode areas.
Caveat
With such a large volume of data, we are unable to key in all names and addresses and therefore we cannot de-duplicate the database. We are happy to accept that this might eliminate a percentage of signatories. We have not recorded the ages of signatories - the supporters' organisations are both very happy to enable minors to express their views on this subject and include them in the numbers - we are not claiming that this is a referendum.
Key data | |
Total signatories to 15 January 2007: |
21,863 |
Of which |
|
Signed online: |
4,213 |
Signed in person: |
17,650 |
Resident in Bath (BA1, BA2, BA3): |
9,823 |
Resident in North East Somerset (BS14, BS31, BS39, BS40): |
639 |
Total signatories resident in B&NES Council district |
10,462 |
Percentage of total signatories resident in B&NES district: |
48% |
Signatories resident in Dorset, Somerset or Wiltshire |
2,969 (13.5% of total) |
Percentage of B&NES signatories (based on sample of 9,313) who attend rugby at the Rec: |
|
- regularly |
29% |
- occasionally |
50% |
- never |
21% |
Given that the petition was used at home rugby games, which attract people from many different places, it is perhaps not surprising that almost 14% of responses were from well beyond the B&NES area - though these people still count as `beneficiaries' as currently understood. With this in mind,, the only additional information we sought was the percentage of Bath Rugby season ticket holders resident in the B&NES Council area. This was because we wished to check the balance between local and non-local responses. The figure is 38%, so the percentage above for response to the petition from B&NES residents is slightly disproportionate, suggesting a response not based solely on a high level of active interest in rugby. This also shows that for every one season ticket holder within the B&NES area, there were almost four petition signatories, again suggesting a response not based solely on an active interest in rugby.
On 7th November 2006, the Bath Chronicle put on a `Breakfast Seminar' to support and promote its editorial commitment to keeping Bath Rugby at The Rec and also to promote the petition. This warrants a mention by way of information, although it was not a consultation event. A range of well-known supporters of the campaign to keep Rugby at The Rec were invited and were present and a number of those known to be against this idea were invited. On the day, both sets of views were expressed. No formal records were kept.
4.6.3. Bath Rugby and Bath Sport Schemes
Shortly before the Strategic Review started, Bath Rugby had been undertaking its own internal work and commissioning others to produce some outline plans for a new stadium with their target capacity of at least 15,000. This new facility was designed to be largely but not solely on the footprint of the current area of land on a long lease to the club. In discussion with Bath Rugby it was decided that the proposals would be best announced at the start of the official questionnaire period to help promote even more interest in the surveys. The proposals are in the Full File as ITEM 13.
Bath Sport's proposals are for The Rec as a whole and the adjacent cricket ground. Those proposals aim to retain, through complete rebuilding, the Leisure Centre and Bath Rugby (new standard) facilities. The basic aspects of their proposal had been in the public domain before the Strategic Review but they prepared, submitted and promoted a fuller version of them specifically for the Review. This came into the public domain before the launch of the surveys. That report is in the Full File as ITEM 14.
Though both sets of proposals had been developing for some time, those described above were specific to the context of the Strategic Review.
In general, these two proposals relate to Options 2 and 3 in the survey. In that sense it was far more useful to have them in the public domain than it was damaging. It was however a pity that the various people and groups who appeared to be against such approaches and the retention of professional rugby in particular (even if they were never that explicit) did not at any time attempt to offer an alternative vision or set of proposals that might have encouraged more interest in something that may well have been quite close to Option 1.
4.6.4. Liberal Democrat Survey
Shortly before Christmas 2006, BDOR were asked whether we would be happy for the local LibDem group to do some sort of promotional work to encourage people to take part in the consultation process. We gave a positive response while stressing the importance of working with us to agree the format. For whatever reason, no contact was made.
Early in 2007 a leaflet (ITEM 15 in the Full File) was circulated, apparently to every household in Bath, including a shortened version of the options used in the official questionnaires, asking people to respond by returning the form to the LibDems, and making clear that they would convey the results to us. The leaflet gave little background to the context of the Strategic Review and the consultation and did not encourage those receiving the leaflet to also contribute to the official surveys. This format led some to imagine that this was the official questionnaire.
Had we been contacted in advance as requested, we would have queried this approach and no doubt have reached an agreed alternative. Our key concern was with the text used for the options, which came across as an adapted version of that used in the official questionnaire. In particular, certain aspects of some options had been left out, others changed and the general tone of the text was significantly different from that in the official version. In our view, this created a clear bias towards Option 3, something on which we received several complaints. We notified this concern to the LibDem group at that time.
We fully accept that the genuine intent behind this process was to help the consultation but the failure to contact us as requested led to an approach which probably had the opposite effect. The main results follow below, exactly as presented to us.
We had a total of 619 replies from across Bath and North East Somerset. Below are the results.
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 |
None |
Options 2+3 |
84 |
130 |
377 |
17 |
11 |
13.6% |
20.8% |
60.9% |
2.7% |
1.8% |
Excluding those from North East Somerset there were 588 replies divided thus;
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 |
None |
Options 2 + 3 |
82 |
121 |
357 |
17 |
11 |
13.9% |
20.6% |
60.7% |
2.9% |
1.9% |
These results show a stronger preference for Option 3 than emerged from any other survey. Although we believe that this reflects mainly the biased nature of the text in the leaflet/questionnaire, it also has to be stated that the comprehensive coverage of all households by the LibDem group ensured a far wider access to core material than did the official surveys.
(We were also concerned that the publication and circulation of the leaflet would have an impact on responses to the `official' questionnaires. An analysis was undertaken of results from the open questionnaire comparing what happened before and after the leaflet. There was no significant difference in the results so the robustness of the overall results has not been affected.)
4.6.5. Bath Federation of Residents Associations
Many but not all of the formal residents' groups in Bath are members of the Federation of Bath Residents Groups. The Federation as a whole had taken a view on the future of The Rec well before the Strategic Review had started and intended to develop their own overall ideas to contribute to the Review. They did this by sending their own informal questionnaire to all of their members during the same time period that the separate groups were receiving the official questionnaire from us.
The questionnaire took the form of an email message as follows:
You will know that there has been considerable discussion in the local press regarding the future of Bath Rugby on the Rec. At the discussions which resulted in the publication of "Better for Bath" we took the view that we preferred for the club to move to another site in Bath. The situation has now altered somewhat, in that it would appear that the council is not prepared to provide a site on Western Riverside, and the rugby club are not happy with any of the suggestions for areas on the outskirts.
The Chairman and I consider that we should ask as many of our members as possible whether their views have altered in any way so that we can respond to the debate with up-to-date figures. These are the suggested questions, which are deliberately simple in order to get a response in the time available. Could you contact as many of your members as possible, and let me know the results by 10 December? We feel it would at least provide a more representative response from the "people of Bath" than that being touted by The Chronicle.
Questionnaire
Assuming that there is an alternative viable site available in Bath, would you:
A. Prefer to see the Rugby Club allowed limited expansion at the Rec
B. Prefer to see the Rugby Club move to an alternative site in Bath
Assuming that there is no alternative site available in the Bath area, would you:
C. Prefer to see the Rugby Club allowed limited expansion at the Rec
D Prefer to see the Rugby Club move away from Bath
Some groups chose to respond to the official questionnaire, some to the above Federation questionnaire, some to both and apparently some to neither (which could mean a lack of interest or that they could not secure any clear view from members). Had we known in advance of the Federation's intention, we could have ensured a greater level of mutual benefit. Nevertheless the results have value, not least because they suggest a change of position for the Federation from that stated (ie. in favour of Bath Rugby relocating) in an earlier publication.
The Federation placed the following statement in the Chronicle outlining their results:
The response to our poll was somewhat disappointing with only 13% responding. Nevertheless some clear views were expressed, and the 580 views that were expressed do provide a sample.
73% of those who voted preferred to see Bath Rugby continue at the Recreation Ground, even if there were another site within Bath available. If no alternative site is possible then the figure rises to 91%. I must stress that this is a sample and not a comprehensive result de facto.
However there are a number of significant caveats associated with that view.
Firstly it was considered that the Charities Commission should comment on the present legal constraints included in the current Deed of covenant.
Secondly, whilst Bath Rugby has put forward an outline plan for its proposals which will involve limited expansion in terms of land occupied; there is still a need for detailed drawings regarding the heights and volume of the new stands, and details of how some 4,500 additional spectators will be able to secure parking and safe access to the ground, and environmental implications such as flooding.
Thirdly, the proposals for an enhanced stadium involving the demolition of the Leisure Centre and the Pavilion appear to be superficially attractive. However the lack of detailed information regarding design and structural drawings, and the level and sources of funding, are noticeably lacking at present. This does not seem to be a viable option for now.
4.6.6. Fitzroy House Residents' Petition
Fitzroy House is in Great Pulteney Street, a series of flats within a Georgian property. Early in the Strategic Review period we received a petition from the residents, which also attracted signatures from some in nearby properties. The statement to which they were asked to sign up was as follows:
We are local residents of Great Pulteney Street and the immediate surrounding area and we are concerned now that Bath Rugby is a fully commercial organisation, with all that entails in terms of satisfying shareholders and the interests of the principal shareholder Andrew Brownsword, that commercial expediency will outweigh other interests at the expense of the local environment and ultimately with Bath's international status as a World Heritage city.
Previous experience has taught us that plans are not always what they seem to be: for example the huge impact that the underpass has had on the local environment was never envisaged by the general public when the plans for the recently opened Batheaston Bypass were passed.
To sustain its position commercially in the first division Bath Rugby has to significantly increase its capacity for paying spectators. The size of the stands to support this could well have a major impact on the surrounding area which is a prime city centre location.
We say YES to Bath Rugby but a resounding NO if it entails major structural changes to the stands and accompanying buildings on their present lease site on the Rec.
40 residents signed the petition (but we do not know the total number of residents). The person who sent it in made clear that some who were more elderly and infirm were not asked as, in his judgement and that of colleagues, one could not be sure that they would have an adequate understanding of what they were signing. The petition is ITEM 16 in the Full File.
We wrote in reply, thanking them for the petition but highlighting some ambiguities in the wording of the text which - once again - we could have helped them to clarify had they contacted us in advance.
4.7. Ongoing Publicity and Media Coverage
This took 3 main forms.
4.7.1. First, there were several press releases from the Strategic Review team (technically from the Trustees) either making clear what the review was about, highlighting its general existence, notifying people about the questionnaire,. Reminding them to complete it and so forth. These are in the Full File as ITEM 17.
4.7.2. Secondly, both on their own initiative and in response to press releases, local radio gave the process some coverage from the start and at one or two other stages. This was fairly minimal (one organisation