Warborough Parish Council Capital Projects Questionnaire Analysis Dec 2020

Warborough Parish Council Capital Projects Questionnaire Analysis Dec 2020

How to Use the Data How to Use the Data We have an Excel workbook with a variety of worksheet and a pdf download of histograms and tables direct from SurveyMonkey breaking down responses by question The pdf doesn t work for the priority questions but we can recreate them from the raw data The pdf isn t 100% accurate as it was the download I took when I shut the survey a day early by mistake before re-opening (so c.287 rather than 306 respondents I m trying to get the full version from SurveyMonkey without having to pay another 99), but it s indicative The data has two main scales for scoring comparison priority and average score (over thematic and project-based questions) This slide deck draws out some stats from both and from interrogating the raw data The accompanying Excel spreadsheet has all the raw data and a few tools Thematic Response Averages and pivot Average Scores and pivot Priorities and pivot The averages tab shows the average score by project for a variety of single selection filters (e.g. has children). For more complex filtering (e.g. has children, is a churchgoer), use the pivot. It can be used to see variation of a certain filtered group from others and from the average The priorities tab show priorities by project (e.g what projects were ranked as priority 3 and by how many etc) but also a sum (number of times a project was ranked anywhere in top 5). To add filtering use the pivot, but at present you can only filter against individual priority rankings, rather than the sum of all (I ve forgotten how to do this) The thematic response tab shows the average scores for these questions. For filtering use the pivot

Some Stats Up Front Some Stats Up Front Lots of people voted - 306 respondents 90% average completion, 10 min duration 230 amplifying comments also left (some more useful than others) 85% from Parish Pretty even response from society members, sports club members, sports facility users (though these two are likely often mixed), Greet Hall user, Church Supporter (all c.40-50%) Strong response from users of Green/local spaces etc, pub supporter and shop supporter (all c.80-90%) 60% with kids, 40% without Nobody votes 2 - you either hate it (1), are indifferent (3), like it (4) or love it (5) This is a summary of what is in there but by no means comprehensive we can go back to the data if councillors have specific things they d like to look at Most people completed it in full and oddly just one group, and in very large numbers, appeared to misunderstand the priorities section in such a manner that had it not been noted might have somewhat skewed the findings

Priorities (No 1) Priorities (No 1) 1st- Project 7 (Replace pavilion) 82 2nd- Project 6 (Refurbish pavilion) 45 3rd- Project 26 (Kingfisher crossing) 15 4th- Project 24 (Village tree planting) 11 5th= - Project 31 (Average speed check) & Project 11 (Church external repairs) 10 30 were left blank The average number of incidences of a project being placed as first priority other than Project 6 or 7 is 5 It shows two massive outliers, one more obvious to explain than the other As the other data also shows, these outliers can likely be attributed to the encouraging of interested parties; again, one set of interested parties are pretty obvious, the other less so The relatively middling position of the averages of these two projects relative to their position in the priorities ranking reinforces the above point and demonstrates that the future of the pavilion apparently excited those interested in it hugely, but others not so much Kingfisher crossing I understand is dead in the water due to siting restrictions noted by Highways (presumably visibility on the bend) Tree planting across the village is consistently popular and is the only project to rank well on priorities and averages

Priorities (Anywhere No 1 Priorities (Anywhere No 1- -5) 5) 1st- 7 (Replace pavilion) 103 2nd- 24 (Village tree planting) - 97 3rd- 6 (Refurbish pavilion) - 64 4th 2 (Village archive) - 60 5th 26 (Pedestrian crossing nr Kingfisher) 57 Every project made it onto the top 5 of someone Only 4 projects weren t ranked No 1 by someone Tree planting again, is pretty important to one in 3 respondents Kingfisher crossing again Archive gets good support

Pavilion Refurbishment / Replacement Comparison Pavilion Refurbishment / Replacement Comparison Refurbishment Replacement Score Breakdown Score Breakdown 1 128 1 132 2 41 2 27 3 31 3 15 4 20 4 8 5 66 5 102 14/66 Refurbishment 5s also voted Replacement 5s their average was 2.5 for all projects vs 2.5 for those who voted Refurbishment 5s and Replacement 1s 14/102 Replacement 5s also voted Refurbishment 5s their average was 2.5 for all projects vs 2.0 for those who voted Replacement 5s and Refurbishment 1s 41/66 Refurbishment 5s also voted it Priority 1 75/102 Replacement 5s also voted it Priority 1 80/128 Refurbishment 1s also voted Replacement 5s 39/132 Replacement 1s also voted Refurbishment 5s Most likely those who are ardently for either project but not the other prioritised it as 1, scored it at 5 and the other at 1 or a mix of those (39-45 pro-Refurbishment, 75-82 pro-Replacement) Whilst a large group clearly voted for Replacement and against Refurbishment, when those groups are removed there is a significantly larger decrease in the average for Refurbishment than for Replacement and very significant volumes voting Replacement at 1 this demonstrates the non-obsessed average Those pro-Refurbishment had similar voting patterns to the non-obsessed across other projects (similar if lower averages but variety of responses), those pro-Replacement appear to have approached the questionnaire in a single-minded manner with very strong correlation between their own scores, little to anyone else s, low average and generally binary (1 or 5) scoring only Respondents from outside the Parish had a vote weighted towards Refurbishment but the Replacement average matched the overall average, so weighted but not one sided. They, probably understandably, had less overall interest in the more esoteric village projects

Top 10s Top 10s Project Numerical Order Project Numerical Order Average Project Description 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.5 Project No Overall - No filter Inside Parish Outside Parish Have Kids Have No Kids Sportsperson Greet Hall User Churchgoer Non-Sportsperson Removing Pavilion Interest Pavilion Interest Only Rebuild Priority Only Removing Rebuild Priority Refurbishment Priority Only Removing Refurbishment Priority 1PC document cloud 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.6 2Village archive 3.0 3.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.6 3.1 3Greet Hall AV 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.3 2.2 3.1 3.0 1.8 1.4 2.9 2.7 2.4 4Greet Hall General 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.4 2.3 3.1 3.0 1.8 1.3 3.0 2.7 2.5 5Greet Hall Kitchen 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.3 3.1 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.7 2.9 2.6 2.6 6Pavilion refurbishment 2.5 2.3 3.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.6 1.3 2.9 4.9 2.0 7Pavilion replacement 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 1.9 3.5 3.3 3.5 1.9 2.0 3.7 4.9 1.9 1.6 2.9 8Allotment/Playground/Sports hub facility 2.5 2.3 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.4 2.9 4.3 2.1 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 3.3 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.1 3.4 2.7 3.5 10Youth Club 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.9 1.8 2.3 2.2 3.1 3.1 1.8 1.3 3.1 2.9 2.5 11Church external repairs / upgrades 2.1 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.4 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 12Church Vestry repairs / upgrades 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 13Provision of Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.5 2.5 2.8 2.1 14St Laurence School facility assistance - Car parking 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.7 1.5 2.2 2.1 3.0 2.9 1.6 1.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 15St Laurence School facility assistance - Reception outdoor play area 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.4 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 16St Laurence School Facility Assistance - Changing room provision 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.6 1.2 2.4 2.3 2.0 17Allotment car park improvements - CCTV 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.5 2.2 2.3 1.9 18Allotment car park improvements - Surfacing 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.3 2.2 2.4 1.9 19Parking around the Small Green 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 3.3 3.4 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.4 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 3.2 3.3 2.5 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 2.8 2.9 3.5 4.2 2.7 2.2 3.4 22Green South Drainage 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.0 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.3 1.8 2.7 24Tree Planting - around village 3.5 3.7 2.8 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.8 4.4 3.2 2.5 3.7 25Tree Planting - Coppice 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.6 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.1 2.7 27Culvert/Ditch Clearance 2.4 2.5 1.6 2.0 3.0 1.7 2.3 2.4 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.3 2.8 1.9 2.4 28Speeding Control - Installation of extra SIDs in the village 2.4 2.5 1.6 2.2 2.6 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.9 1.6 1.4 2.8 2.0 2.4 29Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Thame Rd) 2.5 2.6 1.8 2.2 2.9 1.7 2.4 2.2 3.0 3.1 1.7 1.3 2.9 2.4 2.5 30Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Green) 2.2 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.4 2.6 2.1 2.2 31Speeding Control - Average Speed Check 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.4 2.2 1.6 2.1 32Footpath upgrades - General 3.2 3.4 2.3 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.1 3.1 3.4 4.2 2.8 1.9 3.4 33Footpath upgrades - Millenium 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.3 34River Level and Flood Monitor 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.2 35Allotment improvements - General 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.0 1.9 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 36Playground addition - Sunken trampoline 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.0 2.5 1.6

Top 10s Top 10s Overall Average Score Ranking Overall Average Score Ranking Average Project Description 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.5 Project No Overall - No filter Inside Parish Outside Parish Have Kids Have No Kids Sportsperson Greet Hall User Churchgoer Non-Sportsperson Removing Pavilion Interest Pavilion Interest Only Rebuild Priority Only Removing Rebuild Priority Refurbishment Priority Only Removing Refurbishment Priority 24Tree Planting - around village 3.5 3.7 2.8 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.8 4.4 3.2 2.5 3.7 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 3.3 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.1 3.4 2.7 3.5 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 3.3 3.4 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.4 32Footpath upgrades - General 3.2 3.4 2.3 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.1 3.1 3.4 4.2 2.8 1.9 3.4 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 3.2 3.3 2.5 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 2.8 2.9 3.5 4.2 2.7 2.2 3.4 2Village archive 3.0 3.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.6 3.1 7Pavilion replacement 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 1.9 3.5 3.3 3.5 1.9 2.0 3.7 4.9 1.9 1.6 2.9 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.1 2.7 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.3 1.8 2.7 5Greet Hall Kitchen 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.3 3.1 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.7 2.9 2.6 2.6 1PC document cloud 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.6 10Youth Club 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.9 1.8 2.3 2.2 3.1 3.1 1.8 1.3 3.1 2.9 2.5 25Tree Planting - Coppice 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.6 4Greet Hall General 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.4 2.3 3.1 3.0 1.8 1.3 3.0 2.7 2.5 6Pavilion refurbishment 2.5 2.3 3.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.6 1.3 2.9 4.9 2.0 29Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Thame Rd) 2.5 2.6 1.8 2.2 2.9 1.7 2.4 2.2 3.0 3.1 1.7 1.3 2.9 2.4 2.5 3Greet Hall AV 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.3 2.2 3.1 3.0 1.8 1.4 2.9 2.7 2.4 8Allotment/Playground/Sports hub facility 2.5 2.3 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.4 2.9 4.3 2.1 28Speeding Control - Installation of extra SIDs in the village 2.4 2.5 1.6 2.2 2.6 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.9 1.6 1.4 2.8 2.0 2.4 27Culvert/Ditch Clearance 2.4 2.5 1.6 2.0 3.0 1.7 2.3 2.4 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.3 2.8 1.9 2.4 14St Laurence School facility assistance - Car parking 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.7 1.5 2.2 2.1 3.0 2.9 1.6 1.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 33Footpath upgrades - Millenium 2.3 2.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.3 30Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Green) 2.2 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.6 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.4 2.6 2.1 2.2 13Provision of Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.5 2.5 2.8 2.1 11Church external repairs / upgrades 2.1 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.4 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 34River Level and Flood Monitor 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.2 15St Laurence School facility assistance - Reception outdoor play area 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.4 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 16St Laurence School Facility Assistance - Changing room provision 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.6 1.2 2.4 2.3 2.0 22Green South Drainage 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.0 12Church Vestry repairs / upgrades 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 35Allotment improvements - General 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.0 1.9 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 31Speeding Control - Average Speed Check 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.4 2.2 1.6 2.1 17Allotment car park improvements - CCTV 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.5 2.2 2.3 1.9 19Parking around the Small Green 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 18Allotment car park improvements - Surfacing 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.3 2.2 2.4 1.9 36Playground addition - Sunken trampoline 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.1 2.0 2.5 1.6

Top 10s Top 10s Average Project Description 2.4 2.5 Average Project Description 2.4 2.0 Project No Overall - No filter Inside Parish Project No Overall - No filter Outside Parish 6Pavilion refurbishment 8Allotment/Playground/Sports hub facility 24Tree Planting - around village 7Pavilion replacement 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 2Village archive 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 10Youth Club 32Footpath upgrades - General 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.2 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 24Tree Planting - around village 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 32Footpath upgrades - General 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 2Village archive 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 7Pavilion replacement 5Greet Hall Kitchen 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Average Project Description 2.4 2.3 Average Project Description 2.4 2.6 Project No Overall - No filter Have Kids Project No Overall - No filter Have No Kids 24Tree Planting - around village 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 32Footpath upgrades - General 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 7Pavilion replacement 2Village archive 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 1PC document cloud 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 24Tree Planting - around village 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 2Village archive 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 32Footpath upgrades - General 5Greet Hall Kitchen 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 27Culvert/Ditch Clearance 4Greet Hall General 3Greet Hall AV 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Top 10s Top 10s Average Project Description 2.4 2.2 Average Project Description 2.4 2.7 Project No Overall - No filter Sportsperson Project No Overall - No filter Non- Sportsperson 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 24Tree Planting - around village 2Village archive 4Greet Hall General 10Youth Club 5Greet Hall Kitchen 3Greet Hall AV 32Footpath upgrades - General 29Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Thame Rd) 27Culvert/Ditch Clearance 3.3 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 3.2 2.5 2.4 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 24Tree Planting - around village 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 7Pavilion replacement 32Footpath upgrades - General 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 2Village archive 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 25Tree Planting - Coppice 1PC document cloud 3.5 3.3 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 Average Project Description 2.4 2.5 Average Project Description 2.4 2.5 Project No Overall - No filter Greet Hall User Project No Overall - No filter Churchgoer 24Tree Planting - around village 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 32Footpath upgrades - General 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 2Village archive 7Pavilion replacement 1PC document cloud 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.7 24Tree Planting - around village 32Footpath upgrades - General 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 7Pavilion replacement 2Village archive 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 1PC document cloud 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.7

Top 10s Top 10s Average Project Description 2.4 2.2 Average Project Description 2.4 2.6 Project No Overall - No filter Pavilion Interest Only Project No Overall - No filter Removing Pavilion Interest 24Tree Planting - around village 7Pavilion replacement 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 32Footpath upgrades - General 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 2Village archive 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 6Pavilion refurbishment 1PC document cloud 3.5 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.6 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 24Tree Planting - around village 2Village archive 4Greet Hall General 10Youth Club 5Greet Hall Kitchen 3Greet Hall AV 32Footpath upgrades - General 29Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Thame Rd) 27Culvert/Ditch Clearance 3.3 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 3.2 2.5 2.4 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 Average Project Description 2.4 2.6 Average Project Description 2.4 2.5 Project No Overall - No filter Removing Rebuild Priority Project No Overall - No filter Removing Refurbishment Priority 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 24Tree Planting - around village 10Youth Club 2Village archive 4Greet Hall General 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 29Speeding Control - 20mph zone (Thame Rd) 6Pavilion refurbishment 5Greet Hall Kitchen 3Greet Hall AV 3.3 3.5 2.6 3.0 2.5 3.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 24Tree Planting - around village 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 32Footpath upgrades - General 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 2Village archive 7Pavilion replacement 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 1PC document cloud 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6

Top 10s Top 10s Average Project Description 2.4 2.4 Average Project Description 2.4 2.1 Project No Overall - No filter Refurbishment Priority Only Project No Overall - No filter Rebuild Priority Only 6Pavilion refurbishment 8Allotment/Playground/Sports hub facility 10Youth Club 13Provision of Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) 3Greet Hall AV 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 4Greet Hall General 5Greet Hall Kitchen 2Village archive 24Tree Planting - around village 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.5 3.3 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.9 4.3 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 7Pavilion replacement 24Tree Planting - around village 21Pedestrian links / footways - Rod Eyot 32Footpath upgrades - General 20Pedestrian links / footways - Footpath 6 23Thame Road pedestrian bridge 9Provision against new shop premises requirement 2Village archive 1PC document cloud 26Pedestrian road crossing (nr. Kingfisher Pub) 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 4.9 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.7

Other Village Involvement Categories Other Village Involvement Categories Lunch club helper supporter of school Still quite new to the village and only lived here during COVID-19 so not been able to join as much as I would have liked to. lunch club Child at village primary school River user My child goes to school in the village Cricket club Play cricket river user Lunch club helper, book group organiser School Governor School and Pre school parent and committee Lunch Club organ School parent The Green Car boot enthusiast Regular bus user User of the river Cricket club St. Laurence Hall, Village Website, Surgery Car Service St Laurence Hall, the Village Website, Car boot sale User of the children s play area Surgery Car Service I have lived here since 1947 Lunch club, focus, gardening club, coffee mornings, age concern, film shows Cricket Fan

Thematic Question Responses Thematic Question Responses Focused on young children (under 10s) Focused on older children (10-18) Focused on older generations (65+) Focused on improving existing community assets Focused on providing new community assets Importance of geographical distribution of funds across the Parish Focused on sports, recreation and leisure activities (including those technically termed "infrastructure" projects) Focused on physical infrastructure (specifically not sports, recreation or leisure-focused, and even where technically the responsibility of other levels of Government) 2.5 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.1 Lack of support for Under 10s main outlier, potentially in response to recent playground project Support for older adult generations slightly up on older children No 18-64 category included (hard to see what one could learn from that, or what those projects could conceivably be) Worth bearing in mind the population cross-section as well as lack of likelihood that many children voted (and almost certainly very few under 10s) Expenditure on assets (new and improved) both reasonable Geographical distribution also scored reasonably well though project priorities don t bear that out, perhaps as there are few projects which are conceivably located in Shillingford (location of Parish assets the prime consideration here) some of the comments were rather vociferous about this

Comments Summary Comments Summary In general, most people tried to add value. Predictably, some were rude and showed they had not read or understood the detailed introduction, but there you go Admin: Generally supported with some to and fro over costs and capital vs running costs Assets: Lots of queries about various bodies not paying for their own things (church, school, SODC/OCC, cricket club) Lots of perfunctory support for replacement of pavilion, but little reasoning St Laurence Hall tarmac and railings with a strong showing (presumably via lunch club as they were almost exclusively hand-written and we were specifically asked if they could take a load to fill in and were told how to indicate support for a project not on there) Infrastructure: A mix of concerns about urbanisation regarding path improvements and desires for path improvements Lots of perfunctory traffic measures commentary Several speed control comments We are to do something about the flooding . Not sure who to consult on that one Recreation: Only two topics and mainly negative commentary; allotments should be self-funding and those awful money-grabbing children have had enough of our money, thank you very much seem to be the themes

Summary Summary There is a reasonable level of support for most projects, and reasonable levels of opposition too obviously this was expected in such a wide cross-section and is indicative of the wide-ranging priorities of the stakeholders in a village our size. It does mean when we come to consider each project, we have a reference point for how much support and opposition it has, and in part from what quarters. Popular projects: Reserve held back for assistance with community shop Footpath 6 improvement (cut through from Thame Road to Quaker Lane) Rod Eyot formal pathway Tree planting around village (the two pavilion projects more through priority score than average score) If we put the cricket pavilion aside, there are some useful stats The two main things the pavilion debate tells you: There are a good number of people in and out of the village who support the club s preferred refurbishment plan, but that was never in doubt they have come to our meetings and openly declared themselves and the club is rather large. The club have extensively detailed their arguments in public There is certainly an organised group who have not made themselves known as a group nor openly campaigned for what they have voted for. A reasonable bet is we have recently received some correspondence from amongst their number. Perhaps it is time to ask them for their proposal for the pavilion that seemingly only they want to build

Summary Summary Average negative voting (score of 1) was. C.44% - all scores should be looked at in that context. In general, it would be a fair assumption that for many people they have a few things they like and if it doesn t fit, it gets scored low. Also tactical voting naturally dictates more emphasis on 1s where a respondent wants to create a comparative advantage to their preferred projects (some did this more than others, but the prevalent grouping is very clear) What is stark about the highest overall scoring projects is they attracted little antipathy rather than overwhelming support the top 6 average scores were also the recipients of the 6 lowest negative scores (17-26%, ave. 22% vs 44%, no other scores under 31%) Negative filtering is also worth considering (what do people dislike), but it is worth remembering the average (certainly with the handful of outlier projects removed) project is a little under half of everyone says no, and around half say yes, but subdivide it by varying degrees of strength With the breadth of opinion, the differences in averages are not huge especially considering size of sample, various tactical voting respondents and this narrowness, it seems arbitrary to say a project with a score of 2.4 is unpopular, but one of 2.6 is popular, but that s the difference between 20th and 8thplace so we should be careful how we interpret all of this We should discuss what we d like to do with this information. My view is we should have a discussion around how we would like to incorporate any findings into our existing framework, how we would like to amend that framework. Once we have done that, we can look at all the projects and try to score them again (assuming the resulting framework has a score) and then decide what we would like to pursue and when (which will need detail like project teams and leads, likely or maximum PC contribution, CIL-status, grants etc and much more). I do not recommend picking the first big number and ploughing on