WAMRAG

Summary of Key Findings (For full Report click here)

The Sample

There was a good response to the survey, given the cramped conditions of the exhibition. Of the 589 visitors, 316 (54%) filled in questionnaires, of which 300 were in time to be analysed within our deadline.

Importantly, the majority of the questionnaires were completed by people who live locally and use the riverside area:
85% were Woodbridge/Melton residents. Of the rest, all but one described themselves as local rather than visitors. This no doubt accounts for the relatively high median age of the sample (65 years)
95% used the riverside area for leisure purposes, and almost half of these used the river itself, mainly for leisure vs work purposes.

Just over 40% were willing to be re-contacted for focus groups, which may be a useful adjunct to this survey, once plans have been developed further. WAMRAG subscribers were almost twice as likely to put themselves forward for further research.

Just over 90% felt this consultation process to be worthwhile, and this commitment is backed up by the wealth of additional comments included on the questionnaires (see verbatims) and the high level of accurate question completion.

It is worth noting, however, that just under 30% express reservations about these plans creating a precedent for Woodbridge, and their verbatim comments underline their concerns about overdeveloping/urbanising the area. Interestingly, amongst WAMRAG subscribers (who are likely to be amongst the most informed of the respondents) the concern rises to 45%, suggesting the implications may not be as well understood by the audience at large.

Whisstocks

The importance of retaining the marine character of the Whisstocks site is a major concern to our local sample:
69% feel it is essential/very important and this figure rises to 87% when we add in those judging it quite important (and to 95% amongst local non-residents who no doubt enjoy Woodbridge for this very reason)
85% feel the slipway must be retained, and this figure remains high even if the river itself is not used by respondents.

A list of land uses was included on the questionnaire, to check relative acceptability. It must be noted that not all of these were suggested on the outline proposals, but were included to provide some insight into the level of open-mindedness about potential site uses. there is real strength of feeling about providing public access also seating in the area and retaining active marine usage, in line with the current character of the riverside
leisure usage is also important, and our sample was keen on both the provision of a visitor centre and café/restaurant
light industrial usage, non-marine retail premises and live/work type units though less popular, were still acceptable to over half the audience, with interest in a function room just trailing this
opinions were more mixed regarding a hotel and/or licensed premises and offices. Here we see equal numbers for and against their inclusion, with around 1 in 5 strongly objecting to the hotel/pub options. Chart 1b summarises the perspective of those dissatisfied with the scheme, and highlights the difference in opinion about a hotel in particular. This is likely to be one of the main objections from this quarter
vociferous rejection is only evident for uses such as residential flats/other housing (which were not included in the plans anyway).

Response to the range of architectural styles included was perhaps predictable (see Chart 2). The most acceptable styles were those which included some form of ‘natural material’, (Photos 1, 3, 6, 5 and 9) whereas the aluminium/glass look was much more likely to be rejected as inappropriate.

The overall ratings of the Whisstocks concept (see Chart 3) were quite favourably balanced, though satisfaction was by no means unanimous. As such, there is still work to do to secure an acceptable solution for Woodbridge as between 20-40% are dissatisfied with at least one overall aspect of the scheme, particularly the amount of open space available followed by building density. (This ties in with the importance of public access in the land use question and the 1 in 4 request for more public facilities outlined below.)

A similar pattern of response is notable for the public/commercial balance. Though around 45% feel this is acceptable as it stands, just over 1 in 4 would like to see more of the area devoted to public usage. This latter figure rises to 49% amongst those dissatisfied with the scheme.

Nunn's Mill

As can be seen from Chart 4, there is more of an open-mindedness about land uses where employment is concerned, with little in the way of strong objection. However, certain uses are clearly more acceptable than others:
small workshops/services achieve most acceptance
leisure/tourism, live/work units, light industrial and offices are also quite positively rated, though rejection is beginning to rise
for retail units, the response is more polarised with around 40% both for and against.
The style of housing outlined in the plans is acceptable to the majority. However, there is real opposition to the buildings being brought forward to the pavement edge – 29% view this as not at all acceptable, and 49% object in total (rising to 84% of those dissatisfied with the scheme overall).

The overall pattern of rating the scheme is similar for Nunn’s Mill and Whisstocks, as can be seen from part b of Chart 3. This suggests that over half of the exhibition visitors are broadly in agreement with this overall plan, but that the density of buildings and ratio of open space in particular will be critical factors in determining the acceptability of final plans.