Residents love eating outside, but not the streateries.
Most people (70%) liked the way that we were able to eat out prior to Covid. This was based around tables and chairs on the pavement outside small eateries.
Most people (70%) dislike the tables and chairs in the road, introduced during Covid. In short people (80%) agree that the new eating on the road, brought in during Covid, has made Primrose Hill into a less attractive area.
Pretty much everyone agrees (80%) that streateries left unused for more than a month should be automatically removed.
So the fact that the Camden ETO applies to streateries which have been left unused for months or years is particularly difficult to justify.
As a result no-one has any faith in Camden Council.
Nobody (10%) trusts Camden Council and their ability to make appropriate decisions.
Nobody (10%) feels that we were not appropriately consulted with on the matter of the streateries.
Nobody (10%) feels Camden consultations are based around truly looking to see what people think and thus producing reliable results.
Is the ETO supported or needed?
Most people (70%) feel that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) is a bad idea.
The ETO is not actually an experiment - it continues what has been in place for three years.
In that light most people (70%) feel that they are well placed to decide on these issues now.
Is a mix of shops important?
Everyone (90%) agrees that it is a good idea to have a mix of shops, cafes and restaurants.
About a half of us feel that the introduction of the streateries have damaged this mix. About a quarter, feel the other way.
The majority (60%) feel that aid should be directed to the establishments that need it most.
The need of establishments should perhaps be decided by looking at facts like accounts rather than just asking them what they think.
Should streateries be free?
Pretty much everyone (80%) agrees that restaurants should pay for their use of public land.
Nobody thinks that the current situation in which these things are essentially free is fair, reasonable or viable.
There is a fairly wide range of opinion as to what kind of rent would be reasonable. However the majority fall into the range of £50 to £250 per week.
Pretty much everyone (80%) feels that this is a critical factor in obtaining value for the public and also for ensuring that the restaurants value what they are given.
This is so important that pretty most people (70%) feel that without it the entire scheme should be terminated.
So what do people want?
Pretty much everyone agrees (80%) that they would not be unhappy if the entire scheme was removed in October. This is a time when most of the streateries are unused anyway.
This chimes with our opinion that unused streateries should be removed after a no more than a month. How can one justify leaving them empty and unused all winter?
If they were to be removed in October, everyone (90%) would be open to a more honest conversation about what we would like Primrose Hill to be like, come the next summer.
The characteristics would obviously need to be worked out in conversation. However smaller numbers of more elegant structures would be moderately popular (70%) and a more temporary approach might help (60%).
Notes on methodology.
To turn the results into a narrative we need standardised terms. These are,