The table below summarises the main messages
for each project: what people valued, where views were uncertain,
and the main concerns raised. Full project detail are provided in
Section 2.
|
Project
|
What people liked
|
Why people were unsure
|
Main concern raised
|
|
Old Town Regeneration
|
People liked the focus on protecting
heritage and improving how the Old Town functions day to
day.
|
Some people felt they needed clearer
information about what would change and how it would be
delivered.
|
People were mainly worried that plans
could become process‑heavy without leading to visible
action.
|
|
SQ1 / Brunswick (Cinema + Leisure)
|
People were positive about gaining a
year‑round leisure offer, especially the cinema and wider
activities.
|
People were unsure about who would
benefit and whether it would be affordable for local
residents.
|
The main concern was the loss of retail
and whether public funding should support a private
venture.
|
|
Sprucing Up Scarborough
|
People welcomed visible improvements and
the “basics done well” approach in the town
centre.
|
Some doubted whether improvements would
be maintained or would amount to more than cosmetic
change.
|
People were concerned that private
landlords might benefit despite having neglected
properties.
|
|
Volunteering Hub
|
People liked the potential to build
confidence, skills and purpose through volunteering.
|
People questioned how the hub would add
value compared with what already exists.
|
Concerns focused on admin and overheads,
and whether the hub would have enough practical impact.
|
|
Scarborough Fair
|
People valued events that bring life,
activity and economic benefit to the town.
|
People were unsure about the quality,
affordability and how easy it is to find out what’s
on.
|
People questioned consistency, overall
impact and how benefits are evidenced.
|
|
Turning Tides (Youth Support)
|
People were most positive about mental
health, wellbeing and confidence support for young
people.
|
People wanted more delivery detail and
reassurance about long‑term sustainability.
|
The main concern was duplication with
existing youth or support services.
|
|
Men’s Wellbeing Hub
|
People welcomed support for men’s
mental health, loneliness and peer connection.
|
People were unsure who the hub is for and
how it fits with existing services.
|
Concerns included duplication, delivery
and governance, and a small number asked “why men
only?”.
|
|
Youth Spaces Network
|
People liked having safe places for young
people to go and constructive things to do.
|
People were unsure how the network would
work day‑to‑day and how it would link with existing
provision.
|
Concerns focused on duplication and on
safeguarding and safety expectations.
|
|
Stephen Joseph Theatre Upgrades
|
People valued SJT as an important
cultural asset that brings people into the town centre.
|
People questioned whether this is the
right funding pot or priority.
|
Concerns were about funding fairness,
availability of other routes and perceptions around
affordability.
|
|
Watersports & Sea Centre
|
People liked the idea of year‑round
coastal facilities that support health and wellbeing.
|
People said support depended on location,
water quality and affordability.
|
The main concerns were the location
debate and that water quality is a major confidence
issue.
|
|
Community Grants / Voice Your Choice
|
People liked that local people can make
local change through small grants.
|
People wanted to be confident the process
would be fair and transparent.
|
People were concerned about keeping admin
and oversight proportionate, without becoming
burdensome.
|
|
|
 |
Overall, people agree the Old Town needs
attention and that improvement is overdue. Support is solid, but
often conditional: many respondents want clearer information on
what will change, how delivery will work, and how this will avoid
becoming more process than action.
At a glance:
·
Support (Agree
/ Strongly agree): 60.2% (n=640)
·
Unsure:
27.8% (n=296)
·
Oppose:
11.9% (n=127)
·
Total
responses: n=1,063
·
Net
support: +48.3
·
Open
comments: n=300
The strongest positive theme was support for
heritage‑led improvement
— preserving what makes the Old Town distinctive while making
it feel more coherent, connected, and cared for (102 comments,
34.0%).
People responded well to the idea of a clearer
vision that strengthens identity and improves how the Old Town
works day to day.
“There needs to be a clear vision…
to bring the community together.”
A better place to live, not just to visit
A consistent message was that regeneration
should improve everyday life for residents, not only the
visitor experience (71 comments, 23.7%).
Some respondents explicitly emphasised that the work should feel
resident‑led, with local priorities shaping what
happens on the ground.
“…the sense of
community… will disappear under piecemeal development and the
spread of Airbnb and holiday lets.”
“It’s important this is led by Old
Town residents… rather than the council.”
Many people linked regeneration to visible,
practical improvements — repairs, lighting, safety, and
general upkeep (57 comments, 19.0%).
This theme reflects a strong preference for tangible changes that
people can see and feel, rather than high‑level planning
alone.
Some respondents
described regeneration as a way to improve footfall and support
local businesses — typically framed as a benefit that follows
once the area feels safer and better maintained (54 comments,
18.0%).
Where people were unsure (and
why)
The relatively high
“neither agree nor disagree” response (27.8%) suggests
many respondents were not opposed in principle, but did not feel
they had enough information to fully support the proposal.
A need for more clarity and
detail
Many unsure respondents asked for clearer
information about:
·
what exactly will change
·
the scope and boundaries of the project
·
the expected impact on residents
·
how the project fits with existing activity in the Old Town
People said they liked the ambition but
struggled to picture the practical differences it would make
without more specifics.
Some respondents were unsure because they were
wary of plans that sound promising but do not lead to visible
action. They wanted reassurance that improvement wouldn’t
stall due to slow processes or governance
The most common concern - 62 comments
(20.7%) - focused on a need for concrete detail. People felt
the proposal risked remaining high‑level unless there was a
clear explanation of what would happen and how priorities would be
decided.
“‘Having their voice heard’
is meaningless without concrete power…”
“A glossy plan… likely not to be
implemented.”
A prominent concern
was whether funding would deliver visible, practical outcomes, with
some respondents arguing that priority should be given to
“high‑impact
basics” (lighting, repairs, safety) rather than overheads (59
comments, 19.7%).
3) Delivery risk –
“don’t let it become a talking shop”
A smaller but important theme - 23 comments
(7.7%) - centred on concerns that the project could become
dominated by meetings or process rather than meaningful,
on‑the‑ground improvements.
“Danger of it becoming a talking
shop… Door‑knocking and engagement of poorest and least
confident should be a priority.”
4) Resident impact and community
character (gentrification / holiday lets)
A smaller but notable set of comments
expressed concern about gentrification pressures — for
example, the growth of holiday lets — and emphasised that
improvements should protect the Old Town’s sense of community
and benefit those who already live there.
People’s suggestions focused on a clear,
practical, resident‑centred approach:
·
Explain the project clearly: what will change, where, when and
why
·
Deliver visible basics early (cleanliness, lighting, repairs,
safety)
·
Protect and celebrate heritage while improving
day‑to‑day functionality
·
Make the work genuinely resident‑led and inclusive
·
Avoid process‑heavy approaches and show how decisions will
lead to real action
2.2 Project: SQ1 / Brunswick
Support for SQ1 is high with nearly half
strongly agreeing (44.9%). Opposition is still a meaningful
minority (17.0%), and the comments show most of the hesitation is
about whether public money should support a private scheme, what
happens to the retail mix, and whether the offer will be affordable
and work year‑round.
SQ1 – At a
glance
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 70.3% (n= 805)
·
Strongly agree: 44.9% (n= 514) (514 out of 1,145 total
responses)
·
Unsure (Neither agree nor disagree): 12.2% (n= 140)
·
Oppose (Disagree / Strongly disagree): 17.5% (n= 200)
·
Strongly disagree: 9.2% (n= 105) (105 out of 1,145 total
responses)
·
Net score (net favourability): +52.8
·
Open comments reviewed for this project (online + paper): n=475
A leisure-led, year‑round offer (strongest positive
theme)
Support is most often framed as a practical,
resident‑friendly indoor/all‑weather offer that would
help Scarborough feel busier outside peak season, typically centred
on a cinema plus a wider leisure/food mix.
This theme came through in 164 comments
(34.5%), making it the most frequent supportive narrative in the
written feedback.
“This is a key area of town, bringing in
people to the high street for numerous economic reasons.
Desperately need a decent cinema too.”
“I thought this has already started? Good
idea. More things to do for socialising and families - cinema,
meals out, crazy golf”
“Agree we need an indoor, all season
entertainment center…”
Jobs, footfall and the evening economy (knock-on benefits)
Many supporters connect SQ1 to a wider
town‑centre confidence story: more evening activity, longer
dwell time, and a stronger platform for surrounding businesses
(restaurants, pubs, independents). This came through in 52 comments
(10.9%).
“It used to be a focal point of the
town… everyone flocked there. It would increase the footfall
especially in the evenings as the town is ‘dead’ at
night.”
“...encourage more evening footfall in
the town centre”
More for residents (families and young people)
Support strengthens when the project is talked
about as a resident‑first offer — something families
and younger people would actually use, and a way of giving people
“something to do” beyond the tourist season. This theme
came through in 47 comments (9.9%), sometimes with an implied link
to reduced boredom/antisocial behaviour.
- “There is not much to do in Scarborough
for adults and children. We need a decent cinema and some decent
food places too”
- “Am very much in favour of bringing our
town alive again in the evenings… social integration for all
the family.”
- “Things for children during weekends as
well as leisure for adults on evenings.”
An “anchor” and confidence boost (smaller but clear
theme)
A smaller but clear set of comments describe
SQ1 as an anchor/catalyst - a visible sign that change is happening
and a reason to believe the town centre can shift. This came
through in 34 comments (7.2%).
- “Opportunity to use this project as a
catalyst to extending the nighttime economy across the town centre
area!”
Where people were
unsure
Even among supporters, a lot of feedback comes
with “yes, but…” conditions. The open comments
suggest the debate isn’t really about whether the town centre
needs investment - it’s about whether this is the right type
of investment, who benefits, and what safeguards make it fair and
sustainable. The most common caution themes cluster around retail
mix, affordability, and public vs private funding legitimacy.
main concerns raised
1) Loss of retail and the “right
mix” (most frequent concern theme)
The most common concern isn’t
“don’t do leisure”; it’s “make sure
the mix works” — several comments regret loss of retail
or worry the centre becomes too food‑heavy, and want a
genuinely mixed destination. This appears in 69 comments
(14.5%).
- “Loss of indoor shops useful during bad
weather”
- “This development needs to include a
mix of affordable and accessible options…”
2) Affordability and access
Affordability is repeatedly used as a test of
whether the project is genuinely “for residents” even
people who like the idea question whether locals will use it if
prices feel tourist‑led. This came through in 59 comments
(12.4%.)
- “How will you make this affordable for
people?”
- “Costs… must take into account
the relatively low income of locals…”
3) Public money for a private
venture
A recurring concern is legitimacy: many
comments ask why public funding should support a commercial/private
venture unless clear conditions and public benefit are set out.
Some people pointed to previous experiences with large private
leisure projects and wanted clear assurances on public benefit and
affordability if public money is involved. This came through in 45
comments (9.5%).
- “This is a private commercial
enterprise. We should not put any more public money to
it.”
- “I think that the investors should be
the ones paying not the community.”
4) Viability risk
A smaller but sensitive thread questions
long‑term viability - often referencing changing cinema
habits and the risk of an under‑used asset. This came through
in 23 comments (4.8%).
- “Costs must be realistic for this to
work. People have Netflix and Disney at home
now…”
- “Could you be creating a white
elephant…”
2.3 Project: Sprucing Up Scarborough
People were strongly behind the idea of making
the town centre look and feel better. The feedback is very
practical: residents want improvements they can see and feel in
day-to-day life, not just plans on paper.
Sprucing Up Scarborough –
At a glance
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 81.5% (n= 944)
·
Strongly agree: 50.9% (n= 589)
·
Unsure (Neither agree nor disagree): 11.8% (n= 137)
·
Oppose (Disagree / Strongly disagree): 6.6% (n= 77)
·
Strongly disagree: 2.7% (n= 31)
·
Net score (net favourability): +74.9
·
Open comments reviewed for this project (online + paper): n=430
·
(Base for the sentiment figures: total responses to this question
n=1,158.)
“Make the town centre feel better” –
pride, first impressions, and everyday experience
The
most consistent message is that the town centre looks and feels
tired, and people want changes that improve how it feels to be
there — whether you live locally or you’re visiting.
Support often comes through as a simple desire for visible care,
pride in place, and a centre that feels welcoming again. This theme
came through in 90 comments (20.9%).
- “This needs to be done. The town looks
awful, unwelcoming and not inviting to locals or
tourists.”
- “Parts of the town center are in
desperate need of a spruce up to make it more
welcoming…”
A boost for footfall and confidence (the economic
angle)
A big
part of the support is economic: people link “sprucing
up” to the town centre being somewhere people choose to spend
time and money. Better-looking, better-functioning streets are seen
as a foundation for confidence, attracting businesses and
encouraging more regular footfall. This theme came through in 75
comments (17.4%).
- “...the
town looks tired and uninviting... small businesses [are] investing
and need the town to be more welcoming.”
-
“...doesn’t give a good impression to locals and
visitors alike, and makes it an unappealing place to spend
time.”
Tackling dereliction and empty units is a major
priority
People are very focused on the visible signs of decline —
boarded/empty units, poor shopfronts, and neglected properties.
This is one of the strongest themes in the open comments: people
want the programme to tackle what’s dragging the centre down.
This came through in
119
comments (27.7%).
- “Anti
seagull measures… Improve pop up shop routes to get rid of
the amount of empty shop fronts.”
- “Ugly
shopfronts make a town look horrible…”
“Basics done well” – public realm
essentials
Support is often framed around the basics that make a town centre
comfortable and welcoming: paving, seating, toilets, lighting,
greenery, street furniture and general upkeep. People repeatedly
describe these as the foundation of a better centre. This was the
most frequent theme overall, appearing in 136 comments (31.6%).
-
“Accessible public toilets are needed greatly in
Scarborough.”
- “Money
should be focused on… litter… overflowing commercial
bins.”
where people were
unsure
Even
with high support, there are clear “yes, but…”
messages. The concerns aren’t usually about whether
improvement is needed — most people agree it is — but
about how money is spent, who pays, and whether changes will be
maintained. In the comments, this shows up as a desire for visible
impact (not just cosmetic uplift), stronger responsibility for
owners/landlords, and confidence that improvements will be
maintained.
main concerns raised
Avoid “cosmetic-only” spend
– people want impact, not just aesthetics
While
support is high, some comments warn against spending that looks
good but doesn’t change the underlying experience. This often
appears alongside “value for money” points and the view
that some work should already be normal council activity. This
theme came through in 22 comments (5.1%).
- “Council
should be doing this already.”
-
“...something our council should be doing… make sure it
is efficient and cost effective…”
Landlord accountability –
“owners shouldn’t be rewarded for
neglect”
A recurring concern is that public funds could end up
compensating for private property neglect. People want a clearer
approach to responsibility, and for landlords/owners to be held to
account rather than being “bailed out”. This theme came
through in 78 comments (18.1%).
- “...it
should be the building owners who have to improve the appearance of
their buildings.”
- “Ensure
‘stay away’ landlords maintain
property.”
Safety and antisocial behaviour is part
of the public realm conversation
Although less dominant than cleanliness and dereliction, a
consistent minority link the town centre experience to antisocial
behaviour, enforcement and feeling safe. The message is that
physical improvements land better when people also feel comfortable
using the area. This theme came through in 38 comments (8.8%).
- “Youth
related anti social behavior in the town is too high… It
feels intimidating…”
- “Clean
Safe Well-cared for… Safety is key for locals &
visitors…”
Delivery expectations are high (risk if
momentum stalls)
Because support is strong, there’s an implied reputational
risk: if visible improvements don’t materialise - or
aren’t maintained - it could reinforce scepticism about
delivery and follow‑through. This theme came through in 40
comments (9.3%).
- “Needs
to be long term otherwise improvements start to look run down
themselves.”
-
“Implement more seating, a start was made [but] more
needed.”
When
you bring the suggestions together, they point to a clear “do
this first” list:
1)
Tackle empty/derelict units and shopfront quality (strongest
repeated priority)
2)
Improve the public realm basics (toilets, lighting, seating,
paving, greenery)
3)
Cleanliness and upkeep consistently (litter, bins, maintenance)
Overall, people are broadly positive about the
idea of a Volunteering Hub — but a lot of the support is
“yes, in principle, as long as it’s clear and
practical”. That comes through in the results: 57.8% support
(n=659) alongside a relatively large “unsure” group at
27.4% (n=313). In plain terms, many people aren’t against the
idea — they just want to understand what it would do and what
difference it would make.
At a glance:
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 57.8%
·
Unsure (Neither): 27.4%
·
Oppose (Disagree / Strongly disagree): 14.8%
·
Open comments reviewed: n=310
People were positive about the hub when it
clearly builds confidence, skills and purpose and makes
opportunities easier to find without adding paperwork.
A clearer place to find opportunities
This came up in 59 comments (19.0%) - people
like the idea if it helps centralise information and recognise the
contribution volunteers already make.
- “Already
plenty of volunteering within the community. This could be okay to
centralise something and celebrate the hard work of many
volunteers”
Wider benefits: confidence, skills and purpose
This was the most common positive theme,
coming up in 83 comments (26.8%) - volunteering is seen as
something that can build confidence, routine, inclusion and
wellbeing, particularly if it reaches people who might not
otherwise step forward.
- “A great
idea. Need someone implementing it who knows what they are doing.
Activities to attract people, in particular unemployed,
retired.”
A lot of the uncertainty is about added value.
People want reassurance that the hub would strengthen what already
exists rather than duplicate it.
Build on what’s already
there
This came up in 24 comments (7.7%). Some
people are sceptical that it changes anything, while others are
supportive if it genuinely connects organisations and makes
volunteering easier.
- “Not
convinced it will make any real difference. Charities and good
causes already reach out for volunteers so not sure how this will
strengthen networking!”
main concerns raised
The concerns are mainly practical:
duplication, admin burden and cost.
Duplication / “doesn’t this
already exist?”
This came up in 14 comments (4.5%). The
underlying message is: if we do this, it needs to be clear what gap
it fills.
> “So
many other projects and organisations already, utilise what we have
don’t reinvent the wheel”
Admin / overhead
This came up in 21 comments (6.8%) people are
wary of something that becomes bureaucracy-heavy.
- “Working
in the charity sector I really do not think this is a good idea and
is most likely to be a waste of money with huge admin costs for
each volunteer”
Value for money / what to
fund
This came up in 18 comments (5.8%). a view
from some that modest support for space and basic running costs can
remove real barriers to volunteering:
- “The
voluntary sector often struggles for funding, with
buildings/workspace being a huge hurdle, fund that and the
volunteers will often follow”
Access needs to work online and
offline
This came up in 12 comments (3.9%) and
includes the point that a hub must be easy to access - and that
signposting alone won’t solve a volunteer shortage.
- “There
are already quite a few volunteering websites and the library used
to have a folder as well. The problem is a shortage of people who
want to volunteer!”
People like the idea of making volunteering
easier - but they want it to be clear, proportionate and genuinely
useful. Confidence is likely to strengthen if the hub is described
as a practical connector that:
·
makes opportunities easy to find and match,
·
supports organisations to recruit volunteers without adding extra
paperwork,
·
builds on existing networks rather than duplicating them,
·
and is accessible both online and through trusted local venues.
2.5 Project: Scarborough Fair
A lot of people told us they support
Scarborough Fair and see events as part of what makes Scarborough
feel more alive, more confident and more attractive
year‑round. Support is strong overall, but it comes with
clear expectations: people want events that are good quality, easy
to find out about, affordable and inclusive, and able to show what
difference they make.
At a glance
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 68.6% (n=800)
·
Strongly agree: 35.6% (n=415)
·
Agree: 33.0% (n=385)
·
Unsure (Neither agree nor disagree): 17.0% (n=198)
·
Oppose (Disagree / Strongly disagree): 14.5% (n=169)
·
Total responses: 1,167
·
Net support: +54.1
·
Open comments (online + paper): 393
Events as a way to bring people in and support the town
This was the most common positive message.
People said events help bring people into Scarborough, support
local businesses, and make the town feel busier beyond peak season
107 comments (27.2%)
“This has been such a brilliant
thing… great stuff for both locals and tourism. MUST keep
funding this.”
Community and culture (things to do and a sense of
togetherness)
Many people valued the community benefit: more
cultural activity, more things to do, and events that bring
residents together as well as attracting visitors 87 comments
(22.1%)
Pride, identity and confidence
Some respondents linked Scarborough Fair to
the town’s identity, pride and confidence.
33 comments (8.4%)
“I fully support an investment in culture
and identity which complements the history of
Scarborough.”
Local creatives matter
A smaller but clear theme was that the
programme should feel locally rooted and include local
creatives.
16 comments (4.1%)
“It’s very important that this is
done with local artists…”
The “unsure” group (17.0%)
suggests many respondents were open to the idea but wanted
reassurance about how the programme is delivered — especially
around quality, affordability, how easy it is to find information,
and how impact is shown.
main concerns raised
Quality and consistency (and showing
what difference it makes)
The most frequent theme related to quality and
impact. Some questioned consistency, and others asked for clearer
evidence of outcomes such as footfall or business benefit - 49
comments (12.5%)
“Depends on whether they utilise the
money effectively… events are lacklustre…”
Affordability and inclusion
People repeatedly stressed that local people
should be able to take part and that events should be affordable
and inclusive 34 comments (8.7%)
“These events need to be affordable for
all.”
Finding out what’s on (promotion
and information)
Respondents raised practical issues about
awareness - hearing about events in time, clarity of
“what’s on,” and ease of accessing information
(27 comments (6.9%)
Funding priority (smaller but
present)
A few people questioned whether Scarborough
Fair should be prioritised over other needs 9 comments (2.3%)
“I would rather money be spent on
bringing disused buildings back into use.”
How funding is managed
A small number asked for reassurance about
value for money, clarity of delivery, and whether the programme
should aim for clearer reporting or more self‑funding over
time, this showed up in 9 comments (2.3%)
Across the written feedback, the suggestions
were consistent and focused on:
·
maintaining or improving quality and consistency
·
making information easy to find and easy to understand (clear
“what’s on”)
·
keeping the programme affordable and inclusive
·
providing simple evidence of impact, such as attendance, business
feedback, and year‑to‑year learning
A lot of people told us they strongly support
Turning Tides. Compared with many other projects, this one has high
support and low outright opposition. The dominant pattern in the
feedback isn’t “no” – it’s:
“yes, and please make it clear how it will work and how it
will last.”
At a glance (combined
results)
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 72.7% (n=856)
·
Strongly agree: 40.7% (n=480)
·
Agree: 31.9% (n=376)
·
Unsure: 19.5% (n=230)
·
Oppose: 7.8% (n=92)
·
Total responses: n=1,178
·
Net support: +64.9
·
Open comments: n=327
Mental health, wellbeing and confidence
The strongest
positive message focuses on wellbeing, confidence-building and
preventing issues escalating 108 comments
(33.0%).
“Many
Young kids in scarbough do not get enough support from
parents…”
“Helped me young teen massively in helping to build
confidence.”
Skills, routes into work, and practical help
A second strong
strand focuses on employability, life skills and building ambition
71 comments (21.7%).
“Resilience is the key… younger
society lack the necessary skills.”
“...clear aims and objectives for young people including
skills and experience in the world of work.”
Trusted support (not everyone thrives in groups)
Some people valued one‑to‑one
support, mentoring and trusted relationships, especially for young
people who may not engage well in groups (23 comments,
7.0%).
“...support a young person and know that
it is beneficial for both the young person and their
mentor.”
Invest early (prevention)
A smaller but
clear theme frames Turning Tides as preventative investment 25
comments (7.6%)
“Young
people need to be proud of their roots… investing in them
early… will encourage them to contribute.”
Where people were
unsure
Even with strong support, around 1 in 5
people were unsure (19.5%). Comments suggest this
uncertainty is mostly about wanting clearer detail on:
·
what the offer is in practice (what support looks like
day‑to‑day)
·
who it is for and how young people access it
·
how it links to existing services
·
what happens after funding end
main concerns raised
1) Duplication –
“isn’t this already available?”
Concerns focus on overlap with Early Help,
schools or other support services 56 comments (17.1%)
“Is this
not the Early Help service under a different
name?”
2) Delivery clarity – who leads
it, how it fits, and how success is measured
People want to
know how it links with existing youth provision and how impact will
be measured 40 comments (12.2%)
“...needs
the support of the police, schools and the…”
3) Sustainability – “what
happens when funding ends?”
Concerns about
long‑term viability were common 24 comments
(7.3%)
“I
can’t see this having any viability after the funding runs
out.”
4) Coverage and targeting (who it reaches and
where)
Respondents
want Turning Tides to reach those most in need, not only the
already‑engaged 32 comments (9.8%)
“Give the
age group somewhere to socialise… very low cost… turn
an empty nightclub into a youth centre.”
5) Inclusion /
accessibility
A small number
highlighted practical accessibility and visibility 3 comments
(0.9%)
“Where
would this service be available? It would need to be accessible to
schools and colleges…”
What people
suggested
Across
comments, suggestions converge on four priorities:
- Be clear
what Turning Tides is in practice
(who it’s for, how people access it, what support looks like
day‑to‑day)
- Build the
sustainability plan early
(so it doesn’t feel like short‑term support that
disappears)
- Make
outcomes clear and measurable
(simple impact measures, not complex evaluation)
- Design for
inclusive access
(1:1 options, flexible delivery, reduced barriers)
2.7 Project: Men’s Wellbeing Hub
A lot of people told us they like the idea of
a Men’s Wellbeing Hub — especially where it helps men
feel less isolated and more able to talk about mental health. There
is also a sizeable “unsure” group, which suggests many
people are open to the idea but want clearer detail on what the hub
would offer and how it would fit with support that already
exists.
At a glance
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 59.0% (n=639)
·
Strongly agree: 31.1% (n=337)
·
Agree: 27.9% (n=302)
·
Unsure (Neither agree nor disagree): 26.7% (n=289)
·
Oppose (Disagree / Strongly disagree): 14.3% (n=155)
·
Total responses: n=1,083
·
Overall balance of views: around 45 percentage points more support
than opposition (59.0% vs 14.3%).
·
Open comments reviewed (online + paper): n=338
What people liked about the idea
Mental health, loneliness and peer support
The strongest
positive theme was men’s mental health, reducing isolation,
and creating a safe, welcoming offer that makes it easier for men
to talk without judgement.
151 comments (44.7%)
“Men’s mental health and wellbeing
is often overlooked… this is a very valuable asset to the
town.”
“Support the concept but need to see coordination of these
key facilities for men.”
Dads, fathers and male carers
A notable strand of feedback focused on
dads/fathers and male carers. People said these roles can be
isolating, especially when someone is supporting children or
caring for others and doesn’t have a strong network around
them. Respondents felt a hub could help by offering a welcoming
space to connect with others, build routine, and get support
earlier — rather than waiting until problems escalate. 87
comments (25.7%)
“A very worthwhile project run by dads
for dads… the work they do is vital to the
community…”
“Much needed support for male carers… a combined hub
would cater for everyone.”
Personal impact / testimonials
A smaller group
provided direct, personal accounts of positive impact or trust in
the model 39 comments (11.5%)
“A worthwhile organisation and I
personally can say their work has already helped
many…”
The biggest area was the unsure group
26.7%. Many comments suggest these are people who are open
to the idea but want more clarity.
MAIN CONCERNS RAISED
1) “Why men only?”
(fairness and inclusion)
A small number of people questioned why the
hub is described as men‑only, and said they would prefer
support to be available more broadly. These comments weren’t
necessarily against the idea of helping men’s mental health
— they were asking for a clearer explanation of why this
needs a men‑focused approach and how it sits alongside
support for others. 14 comments (4.1%)
“This project should include support for
women as well as men… such discrimination should not be
encouraged.”
2) “Is this already
available?” (duplication / added value)
Many people asked how this would differ from
existing men’s wellbeing or peer‑support offers. The
underlying message was: if this goes ahead, it needs to be clear
what gap it fills and how it will build on and connect to what
already exists, rather than competing with it. 48 comments
(14.2%)
“There is already a support group…
Andy Man’s Club…”
“This is replicating Andy Man’s Club… We
don’t need another men’s-only club!”
3) “How would it work in
practice?” (delivery, safety & long-term
plans)
People asked about location, delivery model,
funding, governance, sustainability and coordination with others 46
comments (13.6%)
“How does this align with Menfulness and
Andy’s Man’s Clubs… need to see
coordination…”
Key suggestions
Across supportive and unsure feedback, people
consistently want:
·
A simple explanation of who it’s for and what it offers (peer
support? activities? signposting?)
·
Clear links to existing services (so it adds value rather than
duplicating)
·
A basic outline of governance and safety (responsibility,
safeguarding, referral pathways)
·
A realistic plan for continuity (not something that starts well
then disappears)
A lot of people told us they support the idea of safe places for
young people — and many see this as a practical way to reduce
antisocial behaviour by giving young people somewhere positive to
go. Support is strong overall, but the sizeable
“unsure” group suggests many people want clearer detail
on how the network would work day
‑to
‑day, how it links
to existing provision, and how safety and safeguarding would be
managed.
At a glance:
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 71.2% (n=806)
·
Strongly agree: 34.5% (n=391)
·
Agree: 36.7% (n=415)
·
Unsure: 21.6% (n=245)
·
Oppose: 7.2% (n=81)
·
Total responses: n=1,132
·
Net support: +64.0
·
Open comments: n=271
What people liked about the idea
Safe places to go and things to do
The strongest theme is simple: young people
need safe, welcoming places to spend time. This often links to
prevention and diversion from antisocial behaviour (74 comments,
27.3%)
“And they need to be open when school is
closed…”
“One of the biggest concerns I have is antisocial
behaviour… this seems to be a brilliant way of helping shape
our community.”
A network approach feels sensible
People responded positively to using multiple
spaces across the town, closer to where young people live, rather
than relying on a single central venue (34 comments,
12.5%).
“Very exciting and great to use what is
in place…”
Activities and social connection (with the right balance)
A major theme was that spaces need to be
places young people want to be — with informal social
time plus some structured activity, supported but not overly
“managed” (76 comments, 28.0%).
Better futures (when linked to opportunities)
Some respondents framed youth spaces as a
route into confidence, skills and positive opportunities —
while emphasising that it should still feel welcoming and
youth‑appropriate (50 comments, 18.5%).
“We need these all over Scarborough to
help…”
The “unsure” group (21.6%) appears
to reflect “I like the idea, but I need to understand the
model.” Neutral responses often link to:
·
what “network” means in practice (which spaces, who
runs them)
·
how it builds on existing youth provision
·
how safety and behaviour expectations would be managed across
venues
main concerns raised
1) Duplication: “don’t reinvent what already
exists”
A key concern was that the network should
strengthen and coordinate current provision rather than compete
with it (34 comments, 12.5%)
2) Safeguarding and keeping spaces safe
Not the most frequent theme, but
high‑sensitivity: people want reassurance about supervision,
standards and behaviour management (26 comments, 9.6%).
3) Inclusion and access (cost, transport, SEND)
People raised practical barriers such as
affordability, transport and accessibility for SEND/neurodiverse
young people (19 comments, 7.0%).
4) Clarity: what exactly is being proposed and who leads
it?
Some uncertainty stems from not knowing what
the operating model is (accountability, staffing, referral
pathways, day‑to‑day running).
5) Using existing venues (including faith/community
spaces)
Some see this as a strength — but only
if venues feel genuinely welcoming and youth‑appropriate.
What people suggested/key takeaways:
·
Be clear on the model (which spaces are included, who runs
them, how young people access them, what success looks like)
·
Build on what already exists (strengthen and coordinate,
don’t duplicate)
·
Design for reach and inclusion (engage
hard‑to‑reach young people; consider SEND, transport,
cost barriers)
·
Prioritise safeguarding and governance (standards,
supervision, behaviour expectations, accountability across
venues.
A lot of people told us they value the Stephen
Joseph Theatre as an important cultural asset for Scarborough and
want to see it protected and improved. Support is clear overall,
but SJT is also one of the more debated proposals because many
comments focus on priority and funding route — including
whether this is the right funding pot given perceptions that the
theatre may be able to access other capital funding.
At a glance (combined
results)
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 64.1% (n=732)
·
Strongly agree: 37.4% (n=427)
·
Agree: 26.7% (n=305)
·
Unsure: 17.4% (n=199)
·
Oppose: 18.5% (n=211)
·
Total responses: n=1,142
·
Net support: +45.6
·
Open comments: n=364
What people liked about the idea
SJT is seen as a key cultural asset (“a gem”)
The strongest supportive message is that SJT
is a valued local asset that contributes to Scarborough’s
cultural offer and town centre activity (89 comments,
24.5%)
“Such a wonderful well used local
community resource. Should absolutely be supported… Love
SJT!”
“It is one of the few things left to have pride in, must be
preserved and improved upon.”
Accessibility and comfort (who can use it easily)
Support grows
when improvements clearly widen access — especially for older
residents, disabled visitors and those with mobility needs 57
comments (15.7%)
“...a
valuable space… needs to be kept alive… usable and
accessible to all.”
“...unfortunately it’s not accessible to a lot of
dementia people due to very limited parking
nearby.”
Keeping the building in good condition (fit for the
future)
A
clear strand of support sees investment as future‑proofing
and maintaining an important building, including improving the
visitor experience (75 comments, 20.6%).
“The improvements will… preserve the building for
future generations.”
Where people were unsure
The 17.4% unsure group often appears to
reflect “tell me why this is the right funding pot and what
the public benefit is,” rather than rejection of the theatre
itself. In the raw comments, people commonly asked what other
funding options have been pursued and how this proposal compares to
other priorities.
main concerns raised
1) “Shouldn’t this be
funded elsewhere?” (funding fairness)
A consistent
concern: SJT might be able to access other funding routes (e.g.,
cultural funders) and therefore shouldn’t draw heavily on
regeneration funding 58 comments (15.9%)
“...should be self‑funding, or obtain its funding from
the Arts Council etc, not from this regeneration pot.”
2) Priority and value for
money
Some respondents questioned whether SJT
upgrades should be prioritised over other town‑wide needs
(20 comments, 5.5%).
3) Affordability and who
benefits
A number of comments questioned how widely
benefits are felt, including perceptions of affordability or who
uses the venue (32 comments, 8.8%)
“The theatre should be
self‑financing. Maybe if it offered more commercial (less
niche) events…”
4) Sustainability framing can be
divisive
Some support energy improvements; others
prefer the case to be framed around access, building condition and
long‑term viability (25 comments, 6.9%).
“Totally agree… Not sure about cost
of carbon neutral though?”
·
Why this
funding pot is needed (what gap
remains after exploring other cultural funding).
·
The public
benefit offer(accessibility
improvements, community use, outreach, affordability).
·
A clear
affordability and inclusion plan (so benefits
feel resident‑accessible).
·
How success
will be evidenced (e.g.,
improved access, audience reach, community
participation).
2.10 Project: Watersports and Sea
Centre
A lot of people told us they support the idea
of a Watersports and Sea Centre and see it as a natural fit for
Scarborough. Many described the sea as one of the town’s
biggest assets and felt better facilities could strengthen health
and wellbeing, community life and year‑round activity.
At the same time, support is often
conditional. The dominant “yes, but…” themes
were: where it goes (location), whether water quality is addressed,
and whether the offer will be affordable and accessible to local
residents, with a clear plan for delivery and ongoing costs.
At a glance (combined results)
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 65.9% (n=757)
·
Strongly agree: 35.7% (n=410)
·
Agree: 30.2% (n=347)
·
Unsure: 20.1% (n=231)
·
Oppose: 13.9% (n=160)
·
Total responses: n=1,148
·
Net support: +52.0
·
Open comments: n=364
What people liked about the idea
Practical facilities that match how people already use the
coast
People noted Scarborough already has strong
year‑round use by swimmers, surfers and paddlers, but
facilities haven’t kept pace. The strongest supportive
message focused on practical basics such as changing, showers,
storage and access points (62 comments, 17.0%).
“Sea swimming one of our best assets.
Please refurbish and re-open changing block… Also changing
facilities on north side for surfers.”
Health and wellbeing benefits (and inclusion)
Many framed the proposal as a wellbeing
project — improving physical and mental health, confidence
and inclusion, especially if costs are kept low (66 comments,
18.1%).
“The surf school worked amazingly for
children struggling with mental health, so imagine what a hub could
do.”
Tourism, profile and a stronger year‑round offer
A common positive view was that a hub could
raise Scarborough’s profile, support events/clubs, and extend
activity beyond summer (76 comments, 20.9%).
“Our beaches and sea are our greatest
asset… Definitely a great way to boost Scarborough’s
profile.”
There is majority
support, but the 20.1% unsure group suggests many
respondents are open to the idea but need reassurance on key
delivery questions — particularly location, water
quality, affordability, and how the centre would be run
and maintained.
main concerns raised
1) Location debate (South Bay vs North
Bay)
This was one
of the clearest contested issues. People wanted a clear explanation
of why this location and reassurance that benefits are
fairly distributed (82 comments, 22.5%).
2) Water quality is a major
issue
Many felt it is hard to encourage more sea
activity without visible action on bathing water quality. This came
through strongly as a prerequisite/parallel workstream (47
comments, 12.9%).
“What about water quality? …
action??”
“As part of a
wider strategic plan with a clean water Scarborough… this is
a good idea.”
3) Affordability and local
access
Affordability was repeatedly used as a test of
whether the project is truly for residents and community groups,
not just visitors (54 comments, 14.8%).
“Definitely needed especially if costs
are low…”
4) Ongoing costs, governance and
maintenance
People asked who would run the centre, how it
would be managed day‑to‑day, and whether ongoing costs
could be sustained (31 comments, 8.5%).
“Another project
doomed for failure with ongoing costs…”
5) Duplication /
displacement
Some questioned whether the proposal
duplicates existing clubs/businesses and asked how it would add
value rather than displace what already exists (51 comments,
14.0%).
“...we have businesses already offering
this, what displacement has been documented?”
People’s suggestions cluster around a
“make it real and usable” set of conditions:
·
Anchor the project in practical facilities - (changing,
showers, storage, rinse points, accessible design)
·
Treat water quality as a prerequisite or parallel workstream
- (clear assurance, monitoring, partnerships, honest messaging)
·
Be explicit about location rationale - (fairness, access,
environmental impact, year‑round viability)
·
Design for affordability and inclusivity - (pricing for
locals, concessions, disability access, family‑friendly
approaches)
·
Set out the operating model - (who runs it, how it’s
maintained, long‑term sustainability)
Overall, people are supportive of the idea of
a small grants programme that helps local people and groups deliver
practical improvements in their neighbourhoods. Support is strong,
but a sizeable “unsure” group suggests confidence
depends on how decisions are made, how fairness is protected, and
how administration is kept proportionate.
At a glance (combined results)
·
Support (Agree / Strongly agree): 64.5% (n=731)
·
Strongly agree: 27.7% (n=314)
·
Agree: 36.8% (n=417)
·
Unsure: 26.2% (n=297)
·
Oppose: 9.3% (n=106)
·
Total responses: n=1,134
·
Net support: +55.1
·
Open comments reviewed: n=268
What people liked about the idea
Local people making local change
The strongest
positive message is that local residents and grassroots groups know
their areas and can deliver tangible improvements when given the
tools 101 comments (37.7%)
“Yes, local areas know what they
need… everyone will feel happier about where they
live.”
Small pots can go a long way (if the process is simple)
People value
small, flexible funding that doesn’t require heavy
bureaucracy — especially for volunteer-led groups. 33
comments (12.3%)
Borough-wide relevance (not just one area)
Support
strengthens when the scheme feels visibly fair and available to
neighbourhoods across Scarborough 33 comments
(12.3%)
“...bring community together to focus on
projects that make a difference in their area of
Scarborough.”
The
“unsure” group (26.2%) was driven less by opposition to
the concept and more by questions about who decides, how fairness
will be maintained, and whether the process will become
admin‑heavy relative to the size of the grants.
Main concerns raised
1) Fairness and transparency of
decision‑making
The biggest trust concern was
whether decisions will be fair and protected from favouritism (13
comments, 4.9%).
“...open to personality
conflicts… Biggest voices getting too much
influence.”
2) Admin overhead and value for
money
People worried that administration could
outweigh the benefit if the process becomes too heavy (14 comments,
5.2%).
3) Scrutiny, oversight, and proof
it’s working
Some asked for basic safeguards and
accountability — enough to ensure money is used well, without
creating unnecessary bureaucracy (13 comments, 4.9%)
“This could make a real difference as
long as objectives and outcomes are carefully
monitored…”
4) Scepticism about impact (too small /
too scattered)
A number of comments questioned whether small
grants will be meaningful if spread too thinly or not connected to
clearer priorities (20 comments, 7.5%).
“...projects are too small… not
likely to benefit the wider community…”
5) Mixed awareness of ‘Voice Your
Choice / Big Local’
Some respondents weren’t familiar with
the approach, and that lack of understanding reduced confidence (9
comments, 3.4%).
“...I’ve never heard of them which
makes me think this would be a waste of time!”
·
Make the process
easy and accessible (simple forms, clear guidance, low barriers for
volunteer‑led groups).
·
Publish clear rules
and decisions (transparent criteria,
conflicts‑of‑interest controls, clear summaries of
awards).
·
Keep admin light,
but safeguards clear (checks proportionate to grant size and
risk).
·
Use
light‑touch monitoring where appropriate (enough to show
outcomes without creating burden).
·
Ensure
borough‑wide access (good communication so different
neighbourhoods apply and benefit).
Programme-level sense check
– what people told us about the process
Although the
consultation did not include a direct question about the programme
as a whole, many respondents did share views about the wider
approach, overall delivery confidence, and how decisions are made.
These views appeared within their comments on individual
projects.
This section
summarises the recurring cross‑cutting messages. It should be
read as an emerging pattern drawn from multiple project
responses, not as a standalone measurement.
Overall mood (what came through
across the feedback)
Across the
engagement, people were broadly positive about investment and
change. Many expressed a desire for Scarborough to feel more
cared for, more active, and better supported.
Alongside that
positivity, respondents placed strong emphasis on how change is
delivered. A consistent message was that confidence depends on
delivery being clear, fair and visible — and on avoiding a
situation where the programme feels like “more process”
rather than real, tangible change.
What the community emphasised
most often
Bringing these
themes together, overall confidence in the programme appears to be
strongly linked to four recurring ideas:
- Clarity — people want to understand what will
happen, what will change, and how.
- Fairness — people want to know who benefits and how
decisions are made.
- Delivery
confidence —
visible progress, strong follow‑through, and action over
process.
- Value for
money — including
making use of what already exists and ensuring benefits are
accessible.
4. Appendix
About the
“Unsure scenarios” chart: This chart is a scenario model that shows
how the ranking of projects by % support would change under
two hypothetical assumptions about the “Neither agree nor
disagree” (“unsure”) group. The baseline panel
shows the % who selected Agree/Strongly agree as recorded in
the survey. The “Remove unsure” panel recalculates %
support using only people who expressed a view (Agree/Strongly
agree vs Disagree/Strongly disagree). The “Convert
unsure” panel shows a best‑case scenario where all
“unsure” responses are treated as support. These
scenarios are not reported results; they are included to
help interpret where support may be conditional on clarity
and where converting “unsure” responses could most
affect perceived support
Version 1.0 |
Author: Lauren Hopson-Haw (NYC) on behalf of the Scarborough
Neighbourhood Board
