LocalLocal GovernmentGovernment ReviewReview inin thethe CheshireCheshire CountyCounty CouncilCouncil AreaArea
Research Study Conducted by MORI for The Boundary Committee for England
April 2004
Contents
Page Introduction 5
Executive Summary 9
1. Attitudes to Local Governance 11
2. Attitudes to Issues under Review 19
3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23
Option A 27
Option B 31
Option C 35
4. Preferred New Council Name 39
APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up County-wide Questionnaire
3
Introduction
This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Cheshire County Council area. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (henceforth called ‘districts’) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities.
In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in a 2004 referendum at a later date.
MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community. These findings can be found at the Committee’s web site (www.boundarycommittee.org.uk) and MORI’s web site (www.mori.com). The findings were taken into account by the Committee in formulating its draft recommendations for consultation. The second part of the research, which took place in Stage Three of the Committee’s review, has been primarily concerned with residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals and the reasons for local people’s preferences. The findings from the second part of the research are the subject of this report.
Coverage of Main Research MORI has undertaken research in all 44 districts in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. Within each district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home, between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 13,676 interviews took place across the three regions.
5 Additional Interviews In addition to the main research described above, the Committee also asked MORI to undertake further research where it considered it needed further evidence. This related to its reviews in Cheshire, Lancashire and North Yorkshire. First, in districts which the Committee identified may be split in the event of local government reorganisation, it asked MORI to interview additional respondents in order to gauge in more detail their views about options which would directly affect them. The districts were Selby (North Yorkshire), Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal (Cheshire), and Fylde, Rossendale, West Lancashire and Wyre (Lancashire). A total of some 2,000 interviews took place across these areas.
Second, MORI was asked to interview a representative sample of some 300 residents in each of four single-tier councils adjacent to review areas - Sefton, Wigan, Wirral and York.
Findings from the additional interviews have been reported separately.
Style Protocols in this Report We have adopted a number of protocols throughout this report:
• Unless otherwise stated, reference is made to districts rather than towns. For example ‘Macclesfield’ refers to the Borough Council area of that name, rather than to the town.
• Two-tier borough, city or district council areas are referred to as ‘districts’.
• The Boundary Committee for England is referred to as ‘the Committee’.
• CC refers to ‘County Council’, BC to ‘Borough Council’, MBC to ‘Metropolitan Borough Council’ and DC to ‘District Council’.
• An asterisk in a table or chart refers to a percentage between zero and 0.5.
• Definitions for ‘social grade’, and ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, are provided in Appendix 3.
• ‘Review’ refers to the Committee’s review of local government.
• Some figures in charts and tables, and in the marked-up questionnaires at Appendix 4, may not add up to 100%. Occasionally figures may also vary by 1%. In both cases, this is due to rounding. The definitive figures may be found in the computer tabulations provided under separate cover.
• Base sizes have been given throughout this report. Where the base size is under 50, particular caution should be applied when making any inferences.
6 The Cheshire County Council Area
7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Cheshire County Council area (in the North West region). Reports and data for the other five counties under review have been provided separately. Within each two-tier district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 1,850 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the Cheshire County Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age, gender and work status. For aggregated county data, findings have also been weighted by the population size of each individual district. The methodology applied in this research, along with showcards showing the options put forward for consultation and a marked-up questionnaire, are set out in the appendices to this report.
Full computer tabulations have been provided separately. County-wide reports for each county under review, and summary reports for each district, have also been provided under separate cover.
Publication of the Data
As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings.
Mapping
The maps in the Introduction and Chapter 3 of this report are reproduced by kind permission of The Boundary Committee for England from those it used during its Stage Three consultations.
MORI Contact Details
Simon Atkinson, Research Director Vickie Blair, Senior Research Executive Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive Neil Wholey, Senior Research Executive Chris Wiffen, Senior Research Executive
79-81 Borough Road London SE1 1FY Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.mori.com © MORI/20362
8 Executive Summary
• The most important issue which Cheshire residents consider should be taken into account when deciding how council boundaries should be changed is the quality of services. Other important factors are the need for accountability to local people, responding to local people’s wishes and the cost of services.
• Respondents were briefed during the interview about the review of local government and shown cards setting out the main patterns of unitary local government on which the Committee consulted (Appendix 1). Option C (three unitary councils – one based upon the districts of Congleton and Macclesfield, one based on the districts of Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal, and the third based on the districts of Chester and Ellesmere Port & Neston) is clearly the most popular option (preferred by 45% of respondents). Option A (a single unitary council based upon the whole County Council area) is preferred by 25% and Option B (two unitary authorities with one based upon Congleton and Macclesfield plus eastern parts of Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal districts and another based upon Chester and Ellesmere Port & Neston and western parts of Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal districts) by 11% of respondents.
• This hierarchy of preferences obtains in each district: Option C is nominated as the most preferred option in all districts, while Option A is the second most preferred in each case.
• Around one in eight residents (11%) specify, unprompted, a preference for no change. Around one in twelve (8%) do not have a view.
• The main reason for preferring Option C is that residents would like to see the council cover a small area. The main reason for preferring Option A is the view that it would be more efficient or provide better value for money. Residents’ main unprompted reason for liking Option B is their instinct, they think it would be best.
• There is also a clear view overall in the county about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is nominated by nearly a half of residents, the main unprompted reason being the preference for a council which does not cover a large area. Nearly a quarter would least prefer Option C, the main reason being the view that the council would be less efficient and provide worse value for money. One in ten residents would least prefer Option B, the main reason again being the preference for a council that does not cover a large area.
• Just under half of residents claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, compared with just over half who know little or nothing at all.
• At the time of the interview, just one in five claimed to know more than a little about the review of local government – over two in five had not heard of it. As might be expected, knowledge of the review tends to be least evident among social grades C2 and DE, younger people and those who have moved relatively recently to the district. Nevertheless, more had at least heard of the review in Cheshire (55%) than in other counties under review.
9
1. Attitudes to Local Governance Knowledge of Local Government The main purpose of MORI’s survey was to establish residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals for patterns of unitary local government. However, in order to understand residents’ views, a range of contextual questions were also asked – concerned with residents’ knowledge and understanding of local governance and their attitudes towards it. This context is important in its own right. But it is also important to understand whether, and how, residents’ views on the Committee’s preliminary proposals vary in the light of their knowledge and attitudes.
• Knowledge of local councils and the services they provide is low in all the counties MORI surveyed as part of this research. In Cheshire, only 6% claim to know a great deal about local government, while half say they know not very much or nothing at all (51%).
• Knowledge varies across the six districts in Cheshire, from 38% claiming to know a great deal or a fair amount in Chester to 55% in Vale Royal.
• There are wide variations by demographic groups. Generally speaking, the higher the social grade, and the older the resident, the greater is likely to be their knowledge about local councils.
• Those who are involved in the community are also likely to know more about local councils – 59% of those who feel involved with their community (a great deal or a fair amount) claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils, compared with 41% of those who do not feel so involved in the community.
Knowledge of Local Government
Q7 How much would you say you know about local councils and the services they provide?
A great deal A fair amount Not very much Nothing at all Don't know
2% 7% 6%
Great deal/fair amount 47%
Not much/nothing at all 51% 41%
44%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
11 Knowledge of Local Government - Demographic Analysis
Q7 How much would you say you know about local councils and the services they provide? % Great deal/fair amount
AB 53% C1 48% Social grade C2 44% DE 37%
18-34 33% Age 35-54 47% 55+ 57%
Involvement Great deal/fair amount 59% with community Not very much/not at all 41%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Knowledge of Local Government - District Comparisons
Q7 How much would you say you know about local councils and the services they provide? % Great deal % Fair amount % Total
Chester City 5% 33% 38%
Congleton 6% 44% 50%
Crewe & Nantwich 7% 40% 47%
Ellesmere Port & Neston 4% 35% 39%
Macclesfield 8% 40% 48%
Vale Royal 5% 50% 55%
Cheshire 6% 41% 47%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
12 Satisfaction with Local Area MORI finds consistently in its research that residents’ attitudes to where they live relate to a range of perceptions about local governance such as satisfaction with local councils and the services they provide.
In Cheshire, most people are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Nine in ten are satisfied (89%) compared with just 6% who are dissatisfied.
• There are differences in satisfaction between districts overall. The proportion feeling very or fairly satisfied with their area as a place to live varies from 79% in Ellesmere Port & Neston to 94% in Macclesfield.
• There is a relationship between satisfaction and residents’ social grade: 94% of those in social grades AB are satisfied with where they live compared with 80% of social grades DE.
• Those who have a sense of belonging to their district council area, county council area or county area, and those who are satisfied with the services district councils and county councils provide, are also more likely to be satisfied with their local area.
• Residents living in rural areas are more likely to be satisfied with their local area than those living in urban areas – 95% compared with 87%.
Satisfaction with Local Area
Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this local area as a place to live?
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither/nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
4%2% 4%
50% 39%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
13 Satisfaction with Local Area - District Comparisons
Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this local area as a place to live?
% Very satisfied % Fairly satisfied % Satisfied
Chester City 50% 40% 90%
Congleton 48% 44% 92%
Crewe & Nantwich 54% 32% 86%
Ellesmere Port & Neston 27% 52% 79%
Macclesfield 58% 36% 94%
Vale Royal 52% 38% 90%
Cheshire 50% 39% 89%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Satisfaction with Local Area - Demographic Analysis
Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the local area as a place to live?
% Very/fairly satisfied
AB 94% C1 92% Social grade C2 86% DE 80%
18-34 87% Age 35-54 89% 55+ 91%
Length of Five years or les s 88% residence in area Six years or more 90%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
14 Involvement in the Community
Most residents do not feel very involved in their local community.
• One third feels involved a great deal or fair amount (33%), compared with two thirds who do not (67%). A quarter of residents do not feel at all involved (26%). Again, this relates to social grade, as on the previous issues, as well as to residents’ age and sense of belonging to their district council area, county council area and county area.
• There is also a relationship with the type of area in which residents live: 47% of those in a rural area feel involved with their community compared with 28% of those living in an urban area.
• There are some differences between districts – the proportion who feel involved in their local community is lowest in Ellesmere Port & Neston (25%). Across other districts this varies from 31% in Vale Royal to 39% in Macclesfield.
• Those residents who are satisfied with their district council services or county council services are more likely to feel involved with their local area (36% and 38% respectively) than those dissatisfied with district council services (27%) and county council services (29%).
Involvement in the Community
Q5 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?
A great deal A fair amount Not very much Not at all Don't know
1% 7%
26%
26%
41%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
15 Involvement in the Community - District Comparisons
Q5 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?
A great deal A fair amount % Involved 5% 28% Chester City 33%
Congleton 7% 26% 33%
Crewe & Nantwich 11% 23% 34%
Ellesmere Port & Neston 3% 22% 25%
Macclesfield 7% 32% 39%
Vale Royal 7% 24% 31%
Cheshire 7% 26% 33%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Involvement in the Community – Demographic Analysis
Q5 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?
% Great deal/fair amount
AB 46% C1 32% Social grade C2 24% DE 26%
18-34 24% Age 35-54 36% 55+ 37%
Length of Five years or les s 28% residence in area Six years or more 35%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
16 Residents’ Sense of Belonging Previous research has shown that there is usually a hierarchy in residents’ sense of belonging to various geographical areas (cf. MORI’s community research for the Boundary Committee for England, October 2003). Attachment is generally highest with the most local areas (local village or neighbourhood), and progressively lower with district council area and then county council area.
• In Cheshire, 59% of residents feel that they belong to their district council area very or fairly strongly compared to 57% to their county council area.
• As MORI usually finds, however, there is a greater attachment to the ‘county area’ than to the ‘county council area’. In Cheshire, 76% feel strongly attached to the county of Cheshire, compared with 57% who do so for the county council area. The distinction is even more evident in respect of the proportion of residents who feel they belong to an area ‘very strongly’: 20% for the district council area, 17% for the county council area and 39% for the county area.
• This hierarchy is maintained for most districts. However, there are variations between districts in the absolute levels of strong attachment. For district council area, very or fairly strong attachment is held by between 51% of residents in Congleton and 68% in Macclesfield. For county council area, this varies between 50% in Ellesmere Port & Neston and 62% in Macclesfield. For the county area, it varies between 69% in Ellesmere Port & Neston and 82% in Macclesfield and Vale Royal.
Sense of Belonging
Q9/10 How strongly do you feel you belong to each of the following areas? Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly No opinion [Name of] district council The county of Cheshire CC area area Cheshire 7% 2% 6% 17% 6% 9% 20% 10% 16% 39%
27% 27% 40% 39% 37%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
17 Sense of Belonging - District Comparisons
Q9/10 How strongly do you feel you belong to each of the following areas? District council area County Council area County of Cheshire % very/fairly strongly 55% Chester City 54% 74% 51% Congleton 55% 73% 56% Crewe & Nantwich 52% 76% 61% Ellesmere Port & Neston 50% 69% 68% Macclesfield 62% 81% 57% Vale Royal 61% 81% 59% Cheshire 56% 76% Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Older residents (aged 55+) are more likely to feel very or fairly strongly attached to their district council, county council and county areas (66%, 61% and 82% respectively). Those who feel involved in their community are also more likely to feel that they belong strongly to these areas (66%, 62% and 82% respectively). There are no significant variations by social grade.
18 2. Attitudes to Issues under Review Knowledge of Local Government Review Relatively few residents in Cheshire claim to know more than a little about the Committee’s review of local government – 17% overall claim that they knew a great deal or fair amount before their MORI interview. But there are some variations across the county and between demographic groups:
• Some 19% of Crewe & Nantwich residents know a great deal or fair amount about the review, compared with 14% of Chester residents.
• Those in the higher social grades are much more likely to know about the review: 26% of those in social grades AB know a great deal or fair amount compared with just 10% of those in social grades DE.
• Older people are also more likely to know of the review: 24% of those aged 55+ claim to know a great deal or fair amount compared with 8% of 18-34 year olds; indeed, 77% of 18-24 year olds claim to have never heard of the review.
• Those who claim to know about local councils and the services they provide are more likely to know about the review (28% of those who know a great deal or fair amount about local councils also claim to know a great deal or fair amount about the review compared with 6% of those who know not very much or not at all about local councils).
• Those who have lived in the area longer (six years or more) feel more informed about the review – 18% claim to know a great deal or fair amount compared with 12% of those who have lived for five years or less.
• Those who feel involved in the community are more likely to know about the review – 26% of those who feel involved (a great deal or a fair amount) claim to know a great deal or fair amount about the review compared with 12% of those who are not involved.
Knowledge of Local Government Review
Q13 Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government?
A great deal A fair amount Just a little Heard of but know nothing about it Never heard of it Don't know
1% 3% 14%
44%
27%
11%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
19 Knowledge of Local Government Review - District Analysis
Q13 Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government? % great deal/ A great deal Fair amount fair amount
Chester City 2% 12% 14%
Congleton 3% 15% 18%
Crewe & Nantwich 3% 16% 19%
Ellesmere Port & Neston 3% 12% 15%
Macclesfield 3% 13% 16%
Vale Royal 2% 16% 18%
Cheshire 3% 14% 17%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Knowledge of Local Government Review - Demographic Analysis
Q13 Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government? % Great deal/fair amount
AB 26% C1 17% Social grade C2 10% DE 10%
18-34 8% Age 35-54 16% 55+ 24%
Length of Five years or les s 12% residence in area Six years or more 18%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
20 Over half of residents have heard of the review (55%), even if most know little or nothing about it. Among those who have heard of it, newspapers (national or local) are the most common source of information about the review (mentioned by 53% of those who had heard of the review); other media such as TV and radio are mentioned by around a third (30%) mostly through programmes and news on TV, while leaflets (from the County Council, District Council, the Committee or other sources) are mentioned by 21%. Fewer have heard of the review from other sources (such as friends, family and neighbours), councillors or council staff, or from web sites.
Sources of information - Overview
Q14 Where did you hear about the review?
Newspapers 53%
TV\Radio\Posters 30%
Leaflets 21%
Other 18%
Councils 7%
Websites 1%
Base: 1,070 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
21
3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government
Most and Least Preferred Options
The Committee put forward three patterns of unitary local government in Cheshire for consultation, while also remaining open to giving further consideration to alternative patterns:
• Option A is for a single unitary council covering all of the county;
• Option B is for two unitary councils – one council to serve the districts of Congleton and Macclesfield districts combined, plus eastern parts of Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal districts; and one council to serve Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester City, and western parts of Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts.
• Option C is for three unitary councils – one to serve the combined districts Congleton and Macclesfield; one to serve Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts; and another to serve Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City districts.
In the first part of this chapter, we compare residents’ general preferences for the options for unitary local government boundaries put forward by the Committee. Later in the chapter, we look in more detail at each option.
• Overall, there is a preference for Option C in Cheshire, preferred by just under half of residents (45%); 25% prefer Option A, and 11% Option B. One in ten (11%) state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change.
• There is a strong indication of residents’ least favoured option – 48% nominate Option A as their least preferred option, compared with 24% who least prefer Option C and 10% who least prefer option B.
• Most residents are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. Just 8% say they do not know what is their most preferred option and 18% say they do not know their least preferred option.
23 Preferred Pattern of Local Government Q15/16 Which of these options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? You can include any other option which is not listed on this card. And which would you least prefer? Most preferred Least preferred
Option A 25% 48%
Option B 11% 10%
Option C 45% 24%
Other option 0%
No change 11%
None 1%
Don't know 8% 18%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
24 Preferences are consistent across all districts. • Option C (three unitary councils) is preferred in each district. Support ranges from 39% of Chester residents who prefer this option to 52% of Ellesmere Port & Neston residents. • Option A is the second most preferred option in all districts. Three in ten respondents in Chester (28%), Congleton (28%) and Vale Royal (30%) prefer this option, though this is still second to Option C. • Option B remains last in terms of preference, with no more than 14% of residents in any district supporting it. A different picture emerges for residents’ least preferred option; although Option B is last placed for ‘most preferred option’ it is not the least preferred. Rather, it is the option about which residents tend not to have either positive or negative view. Option A is clearly the least preferred option in all districts – a single unitary authority covering the whole of the county. Demographic and other distinctions are explored later in this chapter.
Most Preferred Option - By District
Q15 Which of these options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district Council] area? You can include any other option which is not listed on this card. Option Option Option ABC
Chester City 28 9 39
Congleton 28 14 42
Crewe & Nantwich 21 10 45
Ellesmere Port & Neston 19 14 52
Macclesfield 22 11 48
Vale Royal 30 7 43
= Most preferred Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Least Preferred Option - By District
Q16 And which [of these options, if any} would you least prefer for [named district council] area?
Option Option Option ABC
Chester City 44 7 29
Congleton 46 7 28
Crewe & Nantwich 44 19 13
Ellesmere Port & Neston 57 5 20
Macclesfield 56 9 22
Vale Royal 43 10 31
= Least preferred
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
25 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues
Four issues in particular are identified by residents (from a prompted list) as being most important to take into account when deciding how to change the boundaries of council areas in the county: the quality of services, accountability to local people, responding to local people’s wishes, and cost of services. No other factor is mentioned by more than 4% of residents.
Residents tend to identify these issues regardless of their demographic characteristics, although younger people (aged 18-34 years) and higher social grades (AB) are more likely to identify quality of services; and being accountable to local people is more likely to be identified by those aged 55+ and higher social grades (AB).
Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues
Q24 When deciding on how to change the boundaries of council areas in Cheshire, which one of the things on this list, if any, do you think is the single most important issue to take into account?
% Prompted preferences
Quality of services 28%
Being accountable to local people 19%
Responding to local people's wishes 18%
Cost of services 16%
Ease of contacting the council 4%
Sense of local community 4%
Size of population covered 4%
Access to local councillors 2%
Level of information about the council 2% and its services
Historical or traditional place names 1%
Other 0%
Don't think any of these apply 1%
Don't know/no opinion 2%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
26 Option A
The Committee’s Option A comprises a single unitary council to serve the whole of Cheshire.
27 Residents’ reasons for preferring Option A focus primarily on efficiency and value for money (mentioned by 46% of respondents), creating a strong council, and a more accountable council. On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on its geographical size as a disadvantage (mentioned by 63%). Other key factors are the view that it would not reflect local views or local identity, and would not improve council services.
Reasons for Option A being Most Preferred Option
Q17 Which [of these] reasons best describe why you like this option most?
% Option A (top five reasons)
More efficient / better value for money 46%
It would create a strong council 29%
The council would be more 24% accountable
It's the best of the available options 23%
It would improve council services 21%
Base: 462 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Reasons for Option A being Least Preferred Option
Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option?
% Option A (top seven reasons) I would not like my council to cover a 63% large area
It would not reflect local people’s 39% views It would not reflect local identity 35%
It would not improve council services 29%
It's my instinct - I just think it would be 23% the worst
It’s the worst of the available options 23%
The council would not be more 23% accountable
Base: 880 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
28 Residents who favour Option A are quite firm about their preference – 33% feel very strongly and 49% fairly strongly (a total of 82% feeling very or fairly strongly).
Strength of Feeling for Preferring Option A
Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would your say you prefer this option compared to the other options provided on this showcard?
Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know 1% 3% 14% 33%
49%
Base: 462 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Preference for Option A remains broadly consistent across demographic sub-groups. Three in ten residents (28%) who claim to know a great deal/fair amount about the review prefer Option A, compared with 23% of those who have never heard of it or don’t know about the review. A quarter of residents (26%)in urban areas prefer Option A, compared with 22% of residents in rural areas.
29 Preference for Option A - Demographic Analysis
Q15 Which of the options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? All 25%
AB 26%
C1 23%
C2 27%
DE 24%
18 - 3 4 24%
35-54 26%
55+ 24%
Residence in area for 5 years or less 24%
Residence in area for 6 years or more 25%
Satisfied with District Council services 25%
Dissatisfied with District Council services 26%
Satisfied with County Council services 25%
Dissatisfied with County Council services 26%
Urban 26%
Rural 22%
Know great deal/fair amount about councils 24%
Know just a little/nothing at all about councils 25%
Know great deal/fair amount about review 28%
Know just a little/nothing at all about review 25%
Never heard of it/don't know 23%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
30 Option B
The Committee’s Option B comprises two unitary councils – one council to serve the districts of Congleton and Macclesfield districts combined, plus eastern parts of Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal districts of the county and one council to serve Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester City, and western parts of Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts.
31 Residents’ reasons for their preference for Option B focus primarily on people’s ‘instinct’ and that ‘it is the best’ (mentioned by 31%); other mentions are that the council would be more efficient, and would be more accountable and it would also reflect local people’s views and improve council services. Unlike Option A, there is no single reason that emerges clearly ahead of others. Those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the view that they would not like the council to cover a large area (mentioned by 24%), and is the worst of the available options (23%).
Reasons for Option B being Most Preferred Option
Q17 Which [of these] reasons best describe why you like this option most? % Option B (top five reasons)
It's my instinct - I just think it would be 31% best
The council would be more efficient / 27% value for m oney
The council would be more accountable 25%
It would reflect local people's views 23%
It would improve council services 22%
Base: 203 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Reasons for Option B being Least Preferred Option
Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option? % Option B (top five reasons)
I would not like my council to cover a large 24% area
It's the worst of available options 23%
It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 21% worst
It would not reflect local identity 20%
It would not reflect the right mix of local 17% communities
Base: 175 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
32 There are few demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option B, but compared with a county-wide preference for Option B by 11% of residents, it is preferred more among residents from the C1 social grade (14%).
Those residents who favour Option B feel strongly about their preference – 19% feel very strongly and 64% fairly strongly (a total of 83% feeling very or fairly strongly).
Strength of Feeling for Option B
Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would you say you prefer this option compared to the other options provided on this showcard?
Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know 1% 2% 13% 19%
64%
Base: 203 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
33 Preference for Option B - Demographic Analysis
Q15 Which of the options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? All 11%
AB 11%
C1 14%
C2 8%
DE 9%
18 - 3 4 10%
35-54 11%
55+ 11%
Residence in area for 5 years or less 11%
Residence in area for 6 years or more 10%
Satisfied with District Council services 10%
Dissatisfied with District Council services 12%
Satisfied with County Council services 11%
Dissatisfied with County Council services 11%
Urban 11%
Rural 10%
Know great deal/fair amount about councils 11%
Know just a little/nothing at all about councils 10%
Know great deal/fair amount about review 10%
Know just a little/nothing at all about review 12%
Never heard of it/don't know 10%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
34 Option C
The Committee’s Option C comprises three unitary councils – one to serve the combined districts Congleton and Macclesfield; one to serve Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts; and another to serve Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City districts.
35 Residents’ reasons for their preference for Option C focus primarily on the wish to see the council cover a small area (mentioned by 58%), along with the view that it would reflect local people’s views and sense of identity, and would be more accountable. On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the view that it would be less efficient (mentioned by 41%), would not improve council services, or is felt to be their ‘instinct’ that it is the worst option.
Reasons for Option C being Most Preferred Option
Q17 Which [of these] reasons best describe why you like this option most? % Option C (top five reasons)
I would like to see my council cover a 58% small area
It would reflect local people's views 43%
It would reflect local identity 37%
The council would be more accountable 31%
It would reflect local geography 28%
Base: 807 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
Reasons for Option C being Least Preferred Option
Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option? % Option C (top five reasons)
The council would be less efficient / value 41% for money
It would not improve council services 28%
It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 24% worst
It would create a weak council 21%
It's the worst of available options 18%
Base: 441 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
36 There are some demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option C. Compared to a county-wide preference of 45%, less are aged over 55 (39%), and from the DE social group (37%).
Those residents who favour Option C feel very strongly about their preference – 37% feel very strongly and 52% fairly strongly (a total of 89% feeling very or fairly strongly).
Strength of Feeling for Option C
Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would you say you prefer this option compared to the other options provided on this showcard?
Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know 1%1%
9%
37%
52%
Base: 807 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
37 Preference for Option C - Demographic Analysis
Q15 Which of the options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? All 45%
AB 45%
C1 45%
C2 50%
DE 37%
18 - 3 4 47%
35-54 48%
55+ 39%
Residence in area for 5 years or less 46%
Residence in area for 6 years or more 44%
Satisfied with District Council services 46%
Dissatisfied with District Council services 40%
Satisfied with County Council services 45%
Dissatisfied with County Council services 43%
Urban 45%
Rural 45%
Know great deal/fair amount about Councils 44%
Know just a little/nothing at all about Councils 45%
Know great deal/fair amount about review 42%
Know just a little/nothing at all about review 46%
Never heard of it/don't know 44%
Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
38 4. Preferred New Council Name
The Committee also wished to consult on possible names for any new unitary councils. Those respondents who preferred those options were asked about a number of names in relation to Options B and C. They were also invited to suggest an alternative name, if they wished. Respondents were not asked about names for Option A, however, as the Committee considered there would be less scope for choice for a name of a county-wide authority.
For Option B, ‘East Cheshire’ is the clear preference of residents who preferred those options from two of the four districts that would comprise this council area (30% of Congleton residents and 42% of Macclesfield residents). For the second area in Option B, Ellesmere Port & Neston residents indicate a preference for the name ‘West Cheshire’ (38%). The name ‘County of West Cheshire’ is preferred by 33% of Chester residents. Segments of two of the districts – Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal cover each of the proposed areas. Vale Royal residents show a preference for West Cheshire-related names (55%); and 22% prefer the name ‘County of West Cheshire’. For Crewe & Nantwich residents, 42% do not know which name they prefer. East Cheshire-related names are preferred by 28% of residents; ‘County of East Cheshire’ is the clear preference (18%).
39 Preferred Names
Q21 Which one of these names for the new council for this area, if any, would you prefer? Or is there any other name that you would prefer which is not on this card? Chester Congleton Crewe & Ellesmere Maccles- Vale Nantwich Port & field Royal Neston %%%%%% OPTION A No choices given to respondents OPTION B Chester City and West Cheshire 15 2 5 12 0 8 County of East Cheshire 7 12 18 0 21 9 County of West Cheshire 33 9 9 17 6 22 East Cheshire 3 30 5 0 42 3 East Cheshire County 0 8 5 0 14 3 Eastern Cheshire County 3 0 0 2 4 0 West Cheshire 11 2 5 38 0 12 West Cheshire County 17 11 0 28 0 13 Other043330 None of these 0 4 8 0 3 0 Don’t know 11 16 42 0 6 30
Base: 203 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
40 Under Option C, the most popular choice of name among residents in Congleton and Macclesfield, which would be combined under this option, is East Cheshire County (20% and 32% respectively). Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts would form the second area. Both of these districts’ residents prefer the name ‘Mid Cheshire County’ (29% and 25% respectively). Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester form the third area. Both districts’ residents prefer West Cheshire-related names; those of Ellesmere Port & Neston prefer ‘County of West Cheshire’ (30%) and residents of Chester prefer ‘Chester & West Cheshire County’ (28%).
Preferred Names
Q21 Which one of these names for the new Council for this area, if any, would you prefer? Or is there any other name that you would prefer which is not on this card? Chester Congleton Crewe & Ellesmere Maccles- Vale Nantwich Port & field Royal Neston %%%%%% OPTION C Central Cheshire County 1 6 7 3 3 10 Cheshire Central 3 9 17 6 4 21 Chester & West Cheshire County 28 0 1 19 1 0 Chester City and West Cheshire County 25 * 0 12 0 0 County of East Cheshire 3 16 * 0 19 1 County of Mid Cheshire 1 6 14 2 1 10 County of West Cheshire 22 3 3 30 1 1 East Cheshire County 4 20 1 0 32 1 Eastern Cheshire County 0 2 0 1 5 0 Macclesfield and Congleton County 2 19 0 0 25 0 Mid Cheshire County 1 10 25 3 1 29 Western Cheshire County 4 1 1 7 0 0 Other137648 None of these 0 0 8 1 3 2 Don’t know 6 6 15 10 2 16 Base: 807 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004
41
Appendices
1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Sub-group Definitions 4. Marked-up County-wide Questionnaire
43
Appendix 1 – Option Showcards
The following ‘showcards’ were used during the interview to illustrate the options upon which the Committee was consulting. For technical reasons, the layout varies slightly from the actual ‘showcards’ used by interviewers, on which all the information for an option was contained on one side of A4.
45
J20362/6
CHESHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option A: One unitary covering the whole of Cheshire
Area: Would cover the whole of the existing county council area: Population: 673,800
Services: Would deliver all local authority services to local residents in the county, currently provided by the district councils and county council.
Community Representation: Would represent the interests of all communities within Cheshire, and take into account the needs of local people throughout the county.
Estimated costs of being in business: Are predicted to be around £10.5 million per year (currently £30 million per year).
Note: The costs of ‘being in business’ are those incurred by a local authority regardless of the level of services required or delivered. They are only a small proportion of the total costs.
Cheshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes.
J20362/6 CHESHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option B: Two unitary councils
A Congleton and Macclesfield Districts combined, plus eastern parts of Crewe & Nantwich and part of Vale Royal Districts: Population 318,800.
B Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester City, western parts of Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich Districts combined: Population 355,000
Services: The two new councils would each have responsibility for delivering most local authority services in their area, currently provided by the existing district councils and county council.
Responsibility for major land use planning would be shared by the two new councils. There would be a combined Fire Authority for the whole county, and Cheshire Constabulary would continue to serve the county.
Community Representation: The two new authorities would represent the interests of all the communities in their council areas and take into account the needs of local residents in their authorities.
Estimated costs of ‘being in business’: Are predicted to be around £14.7 million per year (currently £30 million per year).
Note: The costs of ‘being in business’ are those incurred by a local authority regardless of the level of services required or delivered. They are only a small proportion of the total costs.
Cheshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes.
J20362/6 CHESHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option C: Three unitary councils
A: Congleton and Macclesfield Districts combined: Population 240,800. B: Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich Districts combined: Population 233,000. C: Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City Districts combined: Population 199,900. Services: The three new councils would each have the responsibility for delivering most local authority services in their area, currently provided by the existing districts councils and Cheshire County Council. Responsibility for major land use planning would be shared by the three new councils. There would be a combined Fire Authority for the whole county, and Cheshire Constabulary would continue to serve the county. Community Representation: The three new authorities would represent the interests of all the communities in their council areas and take into account the needs of local residents in their authorities. Estimated costs of ‘being in business’: Are predicted to be around £16.8 million per year (currently £30 million per year). Note: The costs of ‘being in business’ are those incurred by a local authority regardless of the level of services required or delivered. They are only a small proportion of the total costs. Cheshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes.
Appendix 2 - Research Methodology Overview
Quantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents think, by measuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions.
Within each two-tier district in Cheshire at least 300 quantitative face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 1,850 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the county:
n
Chester 303
Congleton 334
Crewe & Nantwich 304
Ellesmere Port & Neston 306
Macclesfield 301
Vale Royal 302
Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age and gender, and for aggregate county findings by the population size of each individual district. Full computer tabulations have been provided in a separate volume. District summary reports and tabulations have also been published separately. Interpretation of the Data
It should be remembered that a sample, not the entire population of Cheshire, has been interviewed. Consequently, all results are subject to margins of error, which means that not all differences are statistically significant. In addition, care should be taken in interpreting the results, because of the small number of respondents in some sub-groups, to ensure that the findings are statistically significant.
Unless otherwise stated, the base size for each question is provided. Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of ‘don’t know/not stated’ response categories. An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than half of one per cent, but not zero.
Ideally, every subgroup base will be at least 100 to allow apparent differences between subgroups to be taken as real. Where the base number is very low (<50) it is not advisable to make any inferences about that sub-group.
53 Statistical Reliability
The sample tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given in the table below. Strictly speaking, these only apply to a perfect random sample, although in practice good quality quota samples have been found to be as accurate. The following shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed. As indicated, sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the size of the percentage results.
Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels
10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50% Base: ±± ±
Size of sample on which survey result is based
1,850 (e.g. total number of interviews in Cheshire) 1 1 2
1,500 2 2 3
1,000 2 3 3
750 2 3 4 c.300 (e.g. total number of interviews in each district) 3 5 6
100 6 9 10
50 8 13 14
Source: MORI
54 For example, on a question where 50% of the people in a weighted sample of 300 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary more than around 6 percentage points, plus or minus, from a complete coverage of the entire population using the same procedures. In other words, results would lie in the range 44% to 56%, but would be most likely to be 50%, the actual finding.
Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results from different parts of the sample, and between two samples. A difference, in other words, must be of at least a certain size to be considered statistically significant. The following table is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons.
Differences required for significance at or near these percentages
10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%
Base: ±± ±
Size of sample on which survey result is based
750 and 750 3 5 5 c.300 and c.300 (e.g. when comparing between districts) 5 7 8
250 and 250 5 8 9
150 and 150 7 10 11
100 and 100 8 13 14
50 and 50 12 18 20
Source: MORI
55
Appendix 3 – Social Grade and Area
Social Grade
Social Grades are standard classifications used in research, and are based on occupation of the chief income earner. They are defined as follows:
• A Professionals such as doctors, surgeons, solicitors or dentists; chartered people like architects; fully qualified people with a large degree of responsibility such as senior editors, senior civil servants, town clerks, senior business executives and managers, and high ranking grades of the Armed Services.
• B People with very responsible jobs such as university lecturers, hospital matrons, heads of local government departments, middle management in business, qualified scientists, bank managers, police inspectors, and upper grades of the Armed Services.
• C1 All others doing non-manual jobs; nurses, technicians, pharmacists, salesmen, publicans, people in clerical positions, police sergeants/constables, and middle ranks of the Armed Services.
• C2 Skilled manual workers/craftsmen who have served apprenticeships; foremen, manual workers with special qualifications such as long distance lorry drivers, security officers, and lower grades of Armed Services.
• D Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers and mates of occupations in the C2 grade and people serving apprenticeships; machine minders, farm labourers, bus and railway conductors, laboratory assistants, postmen, door- to-door and van salesmen.
• E Those on lowest levels of subsistence including pensioners, casual workers, and others with minimum levels of income.
Area
Urban and rural classifications are based on the population density of the ward where the sample point is located. Wards with less than 2.8 persons per hectare are classified as rural, and wards with more than 2.8 people per hectare are classified as urban wards.
57
Appendix 4 - Marked-up County- wide Questionnaire
59