Draft Air Quality Action Plan
Consultation Report
Introduction
A draft Air Quality Action plan (2022-27) was
produced for public consultation. Results from this will be fed into the
production of the final plan which will be presented to November
Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee.
An
Air Quality Action Plan (2022-2027) is required as part of our statutory duties
under the Environment Act 1995, as stipulated by the Local Air Quality
Management
(LAQM) framework.
Headlines
o 64% of almost 300 respondents feel informed or very informed about
air quality in the city.
o 35.1% of all respondents own or have access to a petrol-car less
than 15 years old compared to only 8.6% older than 15 years.
o 21.9% of all respondents own or have access to a diesel car or van
more than 5 years old, compared to 7.5% with access to a diesel car or can less
than 5 years old
In order of importance, based on the
consultation responses, the priorities are ranked as follows:
o Priority 4: Reduce emissions from buildings and new development based on the feedback received considered to be the most
important of the 5 priorities at 86.7% . Within Priority 4:
o Highest levels of support - ‘increased information on clean
home heating and subsidies available’ 85.2%
o Lowest levels of support3 - ‘encouraging reducing the
amount of solid fuel burning at home’ at 62.8%
o Priority 1: Increase active travel, support mode shift and reduce
the need to travel:
o Highest levels of support3 are for ‘better public
transport links’, at 86.5% if this was going to improve air quality
o Lowest levels of support3 - ‘installation of a cycle
hangar near my home’ at 50.9%
o Priority 2: Encourage and support uptake of ultralow and zero
emission vehicles:
o Highest levels of support3 - ‘more ultra-low emission
buses in operation’ (92.4%)
o Lowest levels of support3 – ‘discounted parking permits
for lower emission vehicles’ (57.2%).
o Priority 3: Improve and public awareness:
o 64.5% of respondents already use news and weather reports to find
out about air quality compared to only 8.6% using Sussex Air Alert System.
There is scope for promoting various alert systems eg 91.4% of respondents say
they would use Sussex Air Alert System and 87.4% would use online real time air
quality information.
o 12.7% of respondents have switched to cleaner energy already and
32.3% could do so in future with support.
o 9.1% of respondents have already purchased or hire a low or zero
exhaust vehicle and a further 45.4% could do so with support (types of support
mentioned feature on p15).
Methodology
An online survey via the council’s consultation
portal, Citizen Space was open from 16 May to 10 July 2022. Further separate responses
were also received in response to the consultation. The survey was publicised
via the council’s social media, through direct emails and through the council’s
Active & Inclusive Travel Forum. Posters were sent to organisations within
the city to publicise the consultation, including sports venues and GP
surgeries. A contact phone number and email address were available for people
to request paper copies of the draft plan and the questionnaire.
Results
There were 279 responses to the survey. 8 submissions
were from stakeholders, 2 of these left comments which are summarised on p17-18, along with summaries of stakeholder comments
received by email.
Q How would you rate your
awareness of air quality and pollution in the city?
|
|
Number
|
%
|
|
Very well
informed
|
33
|
12.0
|
|
Fairly
well informed
|
143
|
52.0
|
|
Neither
informed or not informed
|
40
|
14.5
|
|
Not very
informed
|
47
|
17.1
|
|
Not
informed at all
|
12
|
4.4
|
|
Total
|
275
|
100
|
Well over half of respondents (64%) feel either
very or fairly well informed about air quality and pollution in the city.
Q Which of the following
do you own or have access to? (respondents
could choose more than one option)
|
|
Number
|
% of all respondents
|
|
A petrol
car or van more than 15 years old
|
24
|
8.6
|
|
A petrol
car or van less than 15 years old
|
98
|
35.1
|
|
A diesel
car or van more than 5 years old
|
61
|
21.9
|
|
A diesel
car or van less than 5 years old
|
21
|
7.5
|
|
An
electric car or van
|
9
|
3.2
|
|
A hybrid
car or van
|
17
|
6.1
|
|
An
electric motorcycle or moped
|
1
|
0.4
|
|
None of
the above
|
70
|
25.1
|
8.6% of respondents own, or have access to,
older petrol cars or vans but for older diesel
vehicles this is higher at 21.9%.
Q How important do you
think our Air Quality Priorities are?
Reducing emissions from buildings and new
development (Priority 4) is considered to be the most important2 of
the 5 priorities at 86.7% and Partnership working (Priority 5) the lowest at
70.8%
|
|
Very important
|
Important
|
Neither important or not important
|
Not very important
|
Not at all important
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
Increase
active travel, support mode shift and reduce the need to travel
|
159
|
57.4
|
46
|
16.6
|
22
|
7.6
|
24
|
9.0
|
26
|
9.4
|
277
|
|
Encourage
and support uptake of ultralow and zero emission vehicles
|
117
|
42.4
|
84
|
30.4
|
25
|
9.1
|
23
|
8.3
|
27
|
9.8
|
276
|
|
Improve
monitoring and public awareness
|
132
|
47.8
|
85
|
30.8
|
28
|
10.1
|
19
|
6.9
|
12
|
4.3
|
276
|
|
Reduce
emissions from buildings and new development
|
167
|
60.3
|
73
|
26.4
|
19
|
6.9
|
9
|
3.2
|
9
|
3.2
|
277
|
|
Partnership
working
|
92
|
36.8
|
85
|
34.0
|
44
|
17.6
|
9
|
3.6
|
20
|
8.0
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q How informed do you
feel about how you could contribute to improving air quality where you live?
Over 55% of respondents feel either fairly or
very well informed about air quality both in their local neighbourhood and in
the city.
|
|
Very well informed
|
Fairly well informed
|
Neither informed or not informed
|
Not very informed
|
Not informed at all
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
In your
local neighbourhood
|
63
|
25.4
|
82
|
33.1
|
48
|
19.3
|
32
|
12.9
|
23
|
9.3
|
248
|
|
In the
city
|
61
|
24.6
|
90
|
36.3
|
45
|
18.1
|
34
|
13.7
|
18
|
7.3
|
248
|
Priority 1: Increase active
travel, support mode shift and reduce the need for travel
Q Which of the following
would you use support if they were going to improve air quality?
Within Priority 1 highest levels of support3
are for ‘better public transport links’, at 86.5% compared to lowest levels of
support3 for the ‘installation of a cycle hangar near my home’ at
50.9%
|
|
Strongly support
|
Somewhat support
|
Neither support or not support
|
Somewhat oppose
|
Strongly oppose
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
More
support for homeworking or online appointments
|
104
|
38.2
|
80
|
29.4
|
48
|
17.6
|
7
|
2.6
|
33
|
12.1
|
272
|
|
Expansion
of the BTN Bikeshare scheme
|
97
|
35.4
|
79
|
28.8
|
41
|
15.0
|
20
|
7.3
|
37
|
13.5
|
274
|
|
Installation
of a cycle hangar near my home
|
86
|
31.7
|
52
|
19.2
|
66
|
24.4
|
19
|
7.0
|
48
|
17.7
|
271
|
|
Better
access to cycle maintenance or training
|
86
|
31.5
|
77
|
28.2
|
65
|
23.8
|
19
|
7.0
|
26
|
9.5
|
273
|
|
Introduction
of a Park and Ride
|
118
|
43.5
|
76
|
28.0
|
44
|
16.2
|
13
|
4.8
|
20
|
7.4
|
271
|
|
Better
public transport links
|
191
|
69.7
|
46
|
16.8
|
29
|
10.6
|
5
|
1.8
|
3
|
1.1
|
274
|
|
Increase
in parking permit charges for additional vehicles
|
110
|
40.4
|
42
|
15.4
|
22
|
8.1
|
24
|
8.8
|
74
|
27.2
|
272
|
|
Low
Traffic neighbourhoods
|
122
|
45.5
|
41
|
15.3
|
24
|
9.0
|
11
|
4.1
|
70
|
26.1
|
268
|
|
Liveable city
centre
|
152
|
58.5
|
24
|
9.2
|
29
|
11.2
|
16
|
6.2
|
39
|
15.0
|
260
|
|
More
attractive and better designed spaces
|
174
|
63.7
|
52
|
19.0
|
31
|
11.4
|
9
|
3.3
|
7
|
2.6
|
273
|
|
Availability
of amenities more locally (eg local shops)
|
139
|
50.9
|
77
|
28.2
|
47
|
17.2
|
3
|
1.1
|
7
|
2.6
|
273
|
Priority 2: Encourage and support
uptake of ultralow and zero emission vehicles
Q Which of the following
would you use support if they were going to improve air quality?
Within Priority 2, highest levels of support3
are for ‘more ultra-low emission buses in operation’ (92.4%) and lowest levels
of support3 are for ‘discounted parking permits for lower emission
vehicles’ (57.2%).
|
|
Strongly support
|
Somewhat support
|
Neither support or not support
|
Somewhat oppose
|
Strongly oppose
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
More
information on low or zero exhaust vehicles and subsidies available
|
114
|
41.3
|
86
|
31.2
|
51
|
18.5
|
6
|
2.2
|
19
|
6.9
|
276
|
|
Car club
or hire schemes that have electric vehicles
|
118
|
43.4
|
64
|
23.5
|
64
|
23.5
|
5
|
1.8
|
21
|
7.7
|
272
|
|
More
availability of electric vehicle charging points
|
135
|
49.3
|
70
|
25.5
|
49
|
17.9
|
6
|
2.2
|
14
|
5.1
|
274
|
|
Discounted
parking permits for lower emission vehicles
|
93
|
34.1
|
63
|
23.1
|
54
|
19.8
|
20
|
7.3
|
43
|
15.8
|
273
|
|
More
ultra-low emission buses in operation
|
212
|
77.4
|
41
|
15.0
|
15
|
5.5
|
1
|
0.4
|
5
|
1.8
|
274
|
|
Increase
in electric or ultra-low emission taxis
|
167
|
60.5
|
59
|
21.4
|
34
|
12.3
|
3
|
1.1
|
13
|
4.7
|
276
|
|
An
expanded ULEZ
|
102
|
42.3
|
33
|
13.7
|
47
|
19.5
|
9
|
3.7
|
50
|
20.7
|
241
|
|
The option
to select an electric vehicle or e-cargo bike for home deliveries
|
109
|
40.5
|
56
|
20.8
|
77
|
28.6
|
7
|
2.6
|
20
|
7.4
|
269
|
Priority 3: Improve Monitoring
and Public Awareness
Q Which of the following
would you use to find out about air quality?
Within Priority 3, 64.5% of respondents already
use news and weather reports to find out about air quality compared to only
8.6% using Sussex Air Alert System. There is scope for promoting various alert
system that people may not have knowledge of.
|
|
Already Use
|
Would use
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
Real time
air quality levels available online
|
27
|
12.6
|
187
|
87.4
|
214
|
|
Sussex Air
Alert System
|
16
|
8.6
|
170
|
91.4
|
186
|
|
Promotional
events eg car free day or walk to school week
|
30
|
19.1
|
127
|
80.9
|
157
|
|
Council
updates via the website, social media etc
|
43
|
23.9
|
137
|
76.1
|
180
|
|
Promotional
campaigns eg seasonal smoke control information
|
25
|
14.8
|
144
|
85.2
|
169
|
|
Local or
national news and weather reports
|
136
|
64.5
|
75
|
35.5
|
211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Priority 4: Reduce emissions from
buildings and new development
Q Which of the following
would you use support if they were going to improve air quality?
This is considered to be the most important of
the 5 priorities at 86.7% (p4). Highest levels of support3 are for ‘increased
information on clean home heating and subsidies available’ 85.2%3 and
lowest levels of support3 are for ‘encouraging reducing the amount
of solid fuel burning at home’ at 62.8%
|
|
Strongly support
|
Somewhat support
|
Neither support or not support
|
Somewhat oppose
|
Strongly oppose
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
Increased
information on clean home heating and subsidies available
|
164
|
60.5
|
67
|
24.7
|
30
|
11.1
|
3
|
1.1
|
7
|
2.5
|
271
|
|
For new
developments, avoid diesel generators as auxiliary back up
|
159
|
59.8
|
49
|
18.4
|
35
|
13.2
|
10
|
3.8
|
13
|
4.9
|
266
|
|
Seek
development opportunities to allow more roadside space for fresh air
|
155
|
58.3
|
39
|
14.7
|
49
|
18.4
|
8
|
3.0
|
15
|
5.6
|
266
|
|
Encourage
reducing the amount of solid fuel burning at home (eg open fires)
|
121
|
45.0
|
48
|
17.8
|
52
|
19.3
|
19
|
7.1
|
29
|
10.8
|
269
|
|
Measures
to ensure only well-seasoned dry wood or smokeless fuels being burnt in an
efficient stove
|
139
|
51.5
|
54
|
20.0
|
44
|
16.3
|
11
|
4.1
|
22
|
8.1
|
270
|
|
Explore
ways to reduce emissions at construction sites
|
169
|
62.4
|
60
|
22.1
|
33
|
12.2
|
3
|
1.1
|
6
|
2.2
|
271
|
|
Explore
ways to reduce emissions at events and leisure sites
|
165
|
60.4
|
58
|
21.2
|
40
|
14.7
|
3
|
1.1
|
7
|
2.6
|
273
|
Q Which of the following could
you easily contribute to?
|
|
I already do / have done this
|
I could do this in future
|
I could do this in future with support
|
I could not do this in future
|
Total
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
Choose
active travel for more city journeys
|
197
|
75.2
|
11
|
4.2
|
19
|
7.3
|
35
|
12.5
|
262
|
|
Choose
public transport for more journeys
|
168
|
64.4
|
29
|
11.1
|
30
|
11.5
|
34
|
13.0
|
261
|
|
Reduce
driving in my current vehicle(s)
|
141
|
63.5
|
19
|
8.6
|
15
|
6.8
|
47
|
21.2
|
222
|
|
Purchase
or hire a low or zero exhaust vehicle
|
42
|
19.1
|
51
|
23.2
|
71
|
32.3
|
56
|
25.5
|
220
|
|
Adapt my
driving style without rapid accelerations and hard braking
|
171
|
81.8
|
21
|
10.0
|
7
|
3.3
|
10
|
4.8
|
209
|
|
Check my
tyre pressures more often
|
140
|
66.0
|
62
|
29.2
|
5
|
2.4
|
5
|
2.4
|
212
|
|
Reduce or
avoid fireworks at home
|
182
|
81.3
|
19
|
8.5
|
4
|
1.8
|
19
|
8.5
|
224
|
|
Reduce or
avoid bonfires at home
|
181
|
80.8
|
16
|
7.1
|
9
|
4.0
|
18
|
8.0
|
224
|
|
Switch
your home heating to cleaner energy like solar, electric and heat pumps
|
33
|
12.7
|
47
|
18.1
|
118
|
45.4
|
62
|
23.8
|
260
|
|
Reduce
fuel use by insulating your home
|
103
|
40.1
|
54
|
21.0
|
68
|
26.5
|
32
|
12.5
|
257
|
o 12.7% of respondents have switched to cleaner energy already and
32.3% could do so in future with support.
o 9.1% of respondents have already purchased or hire a low or zero
exhaust vehicle and a further 45.4% could do so with support (types of support
mentioned feature on p15).
If respondents said, ‘I could do this with
support’ they were asked to give more details. There were 218 comments made
which have been themed as follows:
|
Comment (top ten)
|
No. of times mentioned
|
|
Cleaner
energy / heat pumps - too expensive / grants / subsidies
|
61
|
|
EVs - too expensive
/ needs subsidy
|
37
|
|
Insulation -
too expensive / grants / community buying / subsidies
|
37
|
|
Need more
info/ advice on cleaner energy
|
16
|
|
Buses -
want better/ cheaper / more frequent bus service/ to outlying areas/ not all
via city centre/ night buses/ Park and Ride
|
15
|
|
Renting home
/ council / housing association - can't change it/ landlord responsible
|
14
|
|
EVs -
infrastructure/ technology needs to be improved
|
10
|
|
General
Financial support needed
|
5
|
|
Conservation
Area - double glazed front windows are difficult / need more information on
restrictions/ too expensive
|
4
|
|
Walking -
better infrastructure / pavements/ crossings/ for disabled
|
3
|
|
Difficult to
retro-fit heat pumps / older houses
|
3
|
Any other comments
|
Comment (top ten)
|
No. of times mentioned
|
|
Reduce bottlenecks /
Improve road layouts / Preston Circus / Bear Road-Lewes Road / Rottingdean /
arterial routes / essential traffic only / reverse last 5 years TROs /
remove cycle lanes
|
19
|
|
Ban / discourage /
regulate: wood burning stoves / open fires / bonfires / at allotments / BBQs
/ fire pits / introduce wider smoke control
|
15
|
|
Cycling - more / better
/ safer / joined up infrastructure / routes / school routes/ on seafront /
east-west / north-south / Old Shoreham Road
|
13
|
|
Reduce numbers of cars /
in residential areas /multiple car ownership / diesel vehicles / car usage /
short journeys / in city centre / including EVs / for Car Free Day
|
12
|
|
Park & Ride / for
non-residents / commuters / shift tourists to public transport
|
12
|
|
Increase parking
charges/ in city centre / for larger cars / more controlled parking / remove
/ reduce parking in BN1
|
8
|
|
Free/ Subsidised/
cheaper bus fares
|
6
|
|
Need smart traffic
lights
|
5
|
|
Idling engines / are a
problem / educate / more signs / fines
|
5
|
|
Plan not comprehensive
enough / not future proofed / want glossary / multi choice questions wrong /
priorities wrong / no costs given
|
5
|
About you
Q How have you heard
about this consultation?
|
Method
|
No.
|
%
|
|
I read about it on the
council website
|
40
|
14.3
|
|
I read about it on
social media
|
150
|
53.8
|
|
I heard about it by word
of mouth
|
24
|
8.6
|
|
I read about it in the
local press
|
19
|
6.8
|
|
I saw a poster
|
2
|
0.7
|
|
Other (see below)
|
41
|
14.7
|
|
Other
|
|
Number
|
|
School
|
11
|
|
Local
Community Magazines - Goldstone Valley Residents Association News Sheet (x1),
The Post Magazine (x1), The Hovarian (x1), Preston Pages (x1), West Hove
Forum Newsletter (x1), Latest Brighton Business News (x1)
|
6
|
|
Email
(includes Local Access Forum (x1) Community group/ Association (x2) from
Council Officer (x1)
|
5
|
|
Hollingdean
News
|
3
|
|
North Laine
Runner / Community Association / Community website
|
4
|
|
Labour Party
|
3
|
|
Local Councillor
/ Rottingdean Parish Council
|
3
|
|
Community
Works
|
2
|
|
Better Points
app
|
1
|
|
BHEP
|
1
|
|
Council's
Consultation site
|
1
|
|
Council
meeting
|
1
|
|
The Wave
|
1
|
|
Twitter
|
1
|
|
Sussex CCGs
|
1
|
Q How are you responding
to this consultation?
|
Method
|
No.
|
%
|
|
As an individual
|
270
|
97.8
|
|
As a
representative of a business, organisation or group
·
Member
of Rottingdean Parish Council (x2)
·
Member
of The Green Centre
·
Chair
of Friends of Wish Park, committee member of West Hove Forum and committee
member of Friends of Hove Lagoon
·
Cycling
UK's Cycle Advocacy Network, Local Representative, Brighton and Hove
·
Small business
owner
·
Locksmith
·
Surveying
business owner
|
8
|
2.2
|
Comments from stakeholders - received
as part of the online consultation:
Chair of Friends of Wish Park, committee member of West Hove Forum
and committee member of Friends of Hove Lagoon
·
Move towards the majority of BHCC buses to be electric to reduce
pollution to outlying areas
·
Negotiate with car manufacturers to do more research and
development for other future vehicle zero carbon emission fuels
Cycling UK's Cycle Advocacy Network, Local Representative,
Brighton and Hove
·
Prioritise seeking funding to achieve early implementation of the
Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.
·
Free/subsidised public transport for children and young people.
·
Introduce congestion charging
·
Ensure that Workplace Travel Plans have targets for non-car use
and are enforced with sanctions for non-achievement.
·
Ensure that the design of new developments is improved to prevent
emissions from built-in car dependence, or that the application is refused.
·
Public transport, walking and cycling routes to be available
before occupation of new residential developments.
·
Greater limitations on where large polluting SUV's can be driven
and parked, for air quality (and safety) reasons.
·
Assess Park and Ride on the basis of resulting motor traffic
generation, increased vehicle emissions around car parking areas, increased
motorised journeys on access roads, loss of valuable land for more sustainable
purposes, potential to undermine more sustainable 'whole journey' door-to-door
transport, cost of subsidies allocated to support motorised transport and car
parks, increased total number of parking places (unless city centre parking is
reduced by the equivalent number of spaces at the proposed Park and Ride car
park).
·
How will "Mitigation" of "residential and other
parking" be achieved by adding electric vehicle charging points unless
petrol/diesel vehicles are reliably excluded?
Comments from stakeholders - received
by email:
American
Express Services Europe Limited
American Express
fully supports the City Council’s commitment to reduce emissions and improving
air quality in the City. Brighton and Hove City Council has already made
strides to make it easier and safer for people to travel actively and
sustainably, and we believe that the Draft Air Quality Action Plan sets out a
credible path to truly make Brighton and Hove clean air city. We welcome that
the draft AQA plan and the Local Transport Plan (LTP5) are being developed in
tandem. There are several key dependencies, not least the viability and success
of the AQA plan depends on the LTP5 being able to deliver commuters real
alternatives to car use.
We welcome that
any move to extend the Ultra-Low Emission Zone requirements to vehicles beyond
buses will be accompanied by a future consultation. In advance of that
consultation there are several considerations
·
Making
public transport safe and reliable for shift workers and night workers
(American Express operates 24 hours a day)
·
Recognition
that car use for shift and night workers is often the only safe and practical
option.
·
Accessibility
issues, particularly for disabled colleagues, where public transport options
may be impractical
·
Flexibility
to carers with individual needs.
·
Park-and-ride
needs to accompany any extension to the ULEZ as a viable alternative for people
who need to commute into the centre of the city.
·
Provision
of infrastructure to support/incentivise the uptake of low or no emission
vehicles, especially for charging / re-fuelling.
Lewes District and Eastbourne councils:
I would briefly like to state the following in support of
the BHCC Draft AQAP:
·
The
document is clear and concise and conveys information for the lay reader, BHCC
residents and those most at risk from air pollution.
·
Welcomes
Priority 5: partnership
working.
·
Welcomes
Priority 4: reducing emissions from new development as this is also a
priority for LDC
·
The
document puts into context carbon management versus air quality management and
highlights key distinctions between the two, especially that CO2 is
not considered an air pollutant.
·
BHCC’s
stringent NO2 and PM targets, closer to WHO guidelines than UK
standards and objectives, if approved by Defra will provide a high level of
strategic support for neighbouring LAs such as LDC to implement the same or
similar within their own AQAPs.
·
The
action plan table moves away from the obvious oft-stated transport related
measures and draws on fresh and challenging ideas such as a feasibility study
for a city-wide smoke control area and improving emissions standards for Non Road
Mobile Machinery on construction sites.
Q What is your postcode?
|
Gender
|
No.
|
%
|
City %
|
|
Female
|
108
|
45.4
|
50.2
|
|
Male
|
125
|
52.5
|
49.8
|
|
Non-binary
|
4
|
1.7
|
-
|
|
Other
|
1
|
0.4
|
-
|
|
Total
|
238
|
100
|
100
|
|
Age
|
No.
|
%
|
City %
|
|
17-24
|
2
|
0.8
|
17.2
|
|
25-34
|
19
|
7.2
|
15.0
|
|
35-44
|
49
|
18.5
|
16.4
|
|
45-54
|
61
|
23.0
|
16.0
|
|
55-64
|
80
|
30.2
|
13.1
|
|
65-74
|
42
|
15.8
|
9.3
|
|
75+
|
12
|
4.5
|
6.4
|
|
Total
|
265
|
100
|
100
|
|
Ethnicity
|
No.
|
%
|
City %
|
|
Arab
|
Arab
|
0
|
0
|
0.8
|
|
Asian/ Asian British
|
Bangladeshi
|
1
|
0.4
|
0.5
|
|
Chinese
|
0
|
0
|
1.1
|
|
Indian
|
0
|
0
|
1.1
|
|
Pakistani
|
0
|
0
|
0.2
|
|
Any other Asian
background
|
4
|
1.7
|
1.2
|
|
Black/ Black British
|
African
|
0
|
0
|
1.1
|
|
Caribbean
|
0
|
0
|
0.3
|
|
Any other black
background
|
1
|
0.4
|
0.2
|
|
Mixed
|
Asian and white
|
4
|
1.7
|
1.2
|
|
Black African and white
|
0
|
0
|
0.7
|
|
Black Caribbean and
white
|
0
|
0
|
0.8
|
|
Any other mixed
background
|
2
|
1.3
|
1.0
|
|
White/ White British
|
English / Welsh /
Scottish / Northern Irish
|
187
|
78.2
|
80.5
|
|
Irish
|
12
|
5.0
|
1.4
|
|
Gypsy or Irish Traveller
|
0
|
0
|
0.1
|
|
Any other white
background
|
25
|
10.5
|
7.1
|
|
Other
|
Any other ethnic group
|
2
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
|
Total
|
|
239
|
100
|
100
|
|
Disability
|
No.
|
%
|
City %
|
|
Yes, a
little
|
40
|
16.2
|
7.5
|
|
Yes, a lot
|
18
|
7.3
|
8.8
|
|
No
|
189
|
76.5
|
83.7
|
|
Total
|
247
|
100
|
100
|
|
Disability
|
No.
|
|
Physical
impairment
|
35
|
|
Sensory
impairment
|
7
|
|
Learning
disability/ difficulty
|
7
|
|
Long
standing illness
|
22
|
|
Mental
health condition
|
14
|
|
Developmental
condition
|
5
|
|
Autistic
spectrum
|
0
|
|
Other
|
23
|