Ary Covering the Whole of Cheshire

Local Government Review in the Vale Royal Borough Council Area, Cheshire

Additional Research

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 17

3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 19

Option A 25

Option B 29

Option C 33

4. Preferred New Council Name 37

5. Community Identity 39

APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 3. Research Methodology 4. Marked-up Questionnaires Vale Royal borough East Vale Royal

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 Vale Royal Borough 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 (called in this report ‘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 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. It is with the second part of the research that this report is concerned.

Coverage of Main Research MORI undertook research in all 44 two-tier 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 additional interviews took place across these areas. This report is concerned with the surveys of residents in Vale Royal Borough Council area, Cheshire, and covers both the main research and the additional interviews. Further details of the approach taken in Vale Royal is set out later in this Introduction.

In addition, 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.

Style Protocols in this Report We have adopted a number of protocols throughout this report:

• ‘Vale Royal’ refers to the Borough Council area of that name.

• 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 of ‘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 is under 50, considerable caution should be applied when making any inferences.

6 The Cheshire County Council Area The Cheshire

7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Vale Royal Borough Council area, Cheshire (in the North West region). The Vale Royal research had two components, each of which took place in-home, face to face, between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004.

First, as part of the main research, 302 interviews took place across the borough. Second, MORI undertook further interviews in the east of the borough in order to bring the total number of interviews in the area to 186 (including the 10 interviews which had already taken place as part of the main research). The area is described in this report as East Vale Royal and comprises the Borough Council parishes of Stanthorn and Wimboldsley (in Davenham & Moulton Ward) and Nether Peover, Allostock, Byley and Sproston (in Shakerley Ward).

In each case, 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. The methodology applied in this research, along with showcards showing the options put forward for consultation and marked-up questionnaires (one for the borough as a whole and one for the East Vale Royal area), 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.

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 Considering Boundary Changes • As in Cheshire generally, the most important issues which Vale Royal residents consider should be taken into account when deciding how council boundaries should be changed are the quality and the cost of services. Other important factors are the need for accountability to local people and responding to local people’s wishes. These four factors are also the most important in East Vale Royal. The Options • 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). The options are:

- Option A - a single unitary council covering the whole of the county.

- Option B: - Congleton and Macclesfield districts combined, plus eastern parts of Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal districts; - Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City combined, with western parts of Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts.

- Option C: - Congleton and Macclesfield districts combined; - Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts combined; - Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City districts combined. Most Preferred Option • Overall, there is a preference in Cheshire for the Committee’s Option C: across the county, it is preferred by over two in five residents (45%). Option A is the next most preferred (by one in four - 25%); one in ten (11%) prefer Option B and the same proportion state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change.

• Across Vale Royal borough as a whole, Option C is the preferred choice by a similar proportion (43%), whilst Option A is preferred by three in ten residents. Just under one in ten Vale Royal residents (8%) state an unprompted preference for no change.

• Option C is also the most preferred option in East Vale Royal, but by a smaller margin over Option A (30% compared with 26%), and around one in six (17%) prefer Option B. Strength of preference for Option C is less strong in East Vale Royal than in Vale Royal and Cheshire as a whole. The main reason for preferring Option C in Cheshire, Vale Royal and East Vale Royal is residents’ wish to see their council cover a small area.

9 • In Cheshire and Vale Royal, residents’ main reason for liking Option A is their belief that it will provide better value for money. In East Vale Royal more respondents cite that it would create a strong council as a reason for supporting the option. Least Preferred Option • While Option C is consistently the most preferred option of residents through Cheshire, Option A is the least preferred option in East Vale Royal, Vale Royal borough and Cheshire county. The extent of this view is greater at county level (where Option A is the least preferred option of nearly half of respondents) than more locally (around a third of East Vale Royal respondents cite it as their least preferred option). Option C is the least preferred option of around a quarter of Cheshire respondents, about three in ten Vale Royal respondents and just over a quarter of those in East Vale Royal. Knowledge of Local Government • Most Vale Royal residents do not claim to know much about local government. In the borough as a whole, just over half (55%) claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide – compared with 47% in the county as a whole. But knowledge is lower in East Vale Royal (44% claim they know a great deal or fair amount). Knowledge of the Review • Around one in five residents in Vale Royal claim to know much (i.e. a great deal or fair amount) about the Committee’s review of local government – a similar proportion as in the county generally. But fewer residents have heard of the review in East Vale Royal, just over one in ten, and just over half have not heard of it. In the Vale Royal borough as a whole, the main sources of knowledge about the Committee’s review of local government, for those who had heard of it, are local and national newspapers (mentioned by 45%), TV, radio and other media (27%) - mostly programmes or news on TV - and leaflets, whether produced by local authorities, the Committee or others (24%). In East Vale Royal, the pattern is similar. Expressing a View • Most residents are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. In the county generally, and in Vale Royal as a whole, around one in ten say they do not know what is their most preferred option. In East Vale Royal, however, many more than in the rest of the borough say that they don’t know – one in five.

10 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 Vale Royal, only 5% claim to know a great deal about local government, while just over half claim to know a great deal or fair amount (55%). Around two in five say they know not very much or nothing at all (42%). Knowledge is greater in Vale Royal than in Cheshire as a whole, where 47% know a great deal or fair amount.

• Knowledge of local government is lower in East Vale Royal (where 44% claim to know a great deal or fair amount) than in the rest of the borough.

• There are wide variations by demographic groups in Vale Royal. Generally speaking, the older the resident, the greater is likely to be their knowledge about local councils. Those who are involved in the community are also more likely to know more about local councils. Across Vale Royal as a whole, 72% 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 49% of those who do not feel so involved.

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

Vale Royal district East Vale Royal 3% 2%2%

10% 5% 9%

42%

32% 50% 45%

Base: Vale Royal: 302 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: East Vale Royal: 186 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

11 Attitudes to Local Area MORI consistently finds 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 Vale Royal, residents are generally highly satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Nine in ten are very or fairly satisfied (90%) and under one in ten (8%) are dissatisfied. This is broadly in line with Cheshire as a whole, where 89% are satisfied and 6% dissatisfied.

• Satisfaction is very similar in East Vale Royal (89% being fairly or very satisfied) as in Vale Royal borough as a whole.

• Residents’ attitudes in Vale Royal can be linked to their age and social grade. Older people (aged 55+) are more likely to feel very satisfied with their area than younger people (aged 18-34) - 57% compared with 45%; and 94% of social grades ABC1s are very or fairly satisfied compared with 84% of C2DEs. Those who are satisfied with the services local councils provide are also more likely to be satisfied with their local area – a pattern which is visible in East Vale Royal too. In East Vale Royal those who have a strong sense of belonging to their district council area are also more likely to be satisfied with their local area.

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

Vale Royal district East Vale Royal

5%3% 7% 1% 2% 3%

47% 52% 38% 42%

Base: Vale Royal: 302 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: East Vale Royal: 186 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

12 Involvement in the Community

Generally, most residents do not feel very involved in their local community.

• Just three in ten Vale Royal residents feel involved a great deal or fair amount in their local community (31%), compared to over two thirds who feel not very involved or not at all involved (69%). Over a third of residents do not feel at all involved (36%). Residents’ sense of involvement in their community is at around the same level in East Vale Royal (where 34% feel involved a great deal or fair amount). Across Cheshire, a third of residents (33%) feel involved very or fairly strongly.

• As on the previous issues, this relates to age and social grade, and also to knowledge about local councils and the services they provide. There is also a relationship with the type of area in which Vale Royal residents live: 39% of those in a rural area feel involved with their community compared with 25% of those living in an urban area.

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

Vale Royal district East Vale Royal

1%7% 6% 22%

36% 24% 28%

33% 44%

Base: Vale Royal: 302 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: East Vale Royal: 186 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

13 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 (village or neighbourhood), and progressively lower with district council area and then county council area.

• In Cheshire, this hierarchy is not so evident as in other counties under review: 59% of residents feel they belong very or fairly strongly to their district council area compared to 57% to their county council area.

• In Vale Royal, residents’ sense of belonging to district and county council area ranks third highest and second highest respectively of the six districts in the county. Unusually, Vale Royal residents feel more attached to the county council area than the district council area (60% vs. 57%).

• As MORI usually finds, there is a greater attachment to the ‘county area’ than to the ‘county council area’. In Cheshire as a whole, 76% of residents feel strongly attached to the county of Cheshire (compared with 57% to the county council area). This hierarchy is maintained for Vale Royal: 82% of residents feel strongly attached to the county of Cheshire compared with 60% who feel strongly attached to the county council area.

• Generally, attachments to borough and county council areas are a little lower in East Vale Royal than in the rest of the borough; 50% feel a strong sense of belonging to the borough council area; 53% to the county council area. 84% of residents feel they belong strongly to the county of Cheshire, which - while in line with Vale Royal - is higher than in Cheshire as a whole.

Sense of Belonging – Vale Royal borough

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/Don't know

Vale Royal BC area Cheshire CC area County of Cheshire

3% 10% 11% 4% 19% 21% 12% 10% 10%

49%

23% 19% 33% 38% 39%

Base: Vale Royal: 302 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

14 Sense of Belonging – East Vale Royal

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/Don't know

East Vale Royal BC area Cheshire CC area County of Cheshire

4% 6% 3%3% 14% 16% 10% 20% 15% 39%

36% 27% 37% 26% 45%

Base: 186 residents, East Vale Royal, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

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 – just 17% overall claim that they knew a great deal or fair amount before their MORI interview, and there is relatively little variation between districts.

• A similar proportion of residents in Vale Royal (18%) as in Cheshire generally claim that they knew much (a great deal or fair amount) about the review before MORI’s interview. Knowledge in East Vale Royal is lower, 12% claiming to know a great deal or a fair amount.

• There are some significant variations between demographic groups. Across the county, 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.

• In the county as a whole, those who claim to know about local councils and the services they provide are more likely to know about the review (28% of those in Cheshire who know a great deal or fair amount about local councils also claim to know a great deal or fair amount about the review). 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 in the area for five years or less.

• Small base sizes on this issue mean that similar analysis on a borough or sub- borough basis can only be undertaken with caution, but there is no evidence in the data to suggest that the county-wide patterns are not reflected in Vale Royal and East Vale Royal.

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

Vale Royal district East Vale Royal

3%2% 2%3% 16% 9%

20%

52% 20% 54%

13% 8%

Base: Vale Royal: 302 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: East Vale Royal: 186 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

17 Over half of residents across the county have heard of the review, even if they know nothing about it (55%). A smaller proportion has heard of the review in Vale Royal borough (46%) and East Vale Royal (45%). Among those who have heard of it, newspapers (national or local) are the most common source of information about the review, followed by other media such as TV and radio, and then leaflets (from local authorities, the Committee or other sources). As the following charts illustrate, the broad patterns in the Vale Royal borough as a whole also apply in East Vale Royal, though in the latter TV, radio and posters account for a third of the sources, compared with 27% in the borough as a whole.

Sources of information – Overview (Vale Royal borough)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 45%

TV\Radio\Posters 27%

Leaflets 24%

Councils 14%

Websites 2%

Base: 157 Vale Royal residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Sources of information – Overview (East Vale Royal)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 42%

TV\Radio\Posters 35%

Leaflets 23%

Councils 4%

Websites 0%

Base: 95 East Vale Royal residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004 18 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. The options for the Cheshire area are:

• Option A: - a single unitary council covering the whole of the county.

• Option B (two unitary councils): - Congleton, Macclesfield, part of Crewe & Nantwich (the Crewe area) and part of Vale Royal districts combined; and - Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester, part of Crewe & Nantwich (the Nantwich area) and part of Vale Royal districts combined.

• Option C (three unitary councils): - Congleton and Macclesfield districts combined; - Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts combined; and - Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City districts combined.

In the first part of this chapter, we compare residents’ overall 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 nine (11%) state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change.

• Across Vale Royal borough as a whole, Option C is the preferred option by a similar proportion of residents (43%). Option A is the second most popular choice, supported by three in ten residents (30%) and just 7% prefer Option B. As in Cheshire generally, just under one in ten Vale Royal residents state an unprompted preference for no change (8%).

• In East Vale Royal, preferences are not as conclusive as in the rest of the borough. Option C is the most preferred, but by a smaller proportion of residents (30%) than in the borough as a whole. Option A is a close second (preferred by 26% of residents), and Option B gains more support than in the rest of the borough (17%).

19 • There is a similarly clear view in Cheshire about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is the least preferred option in the county as a whole (nominated by 48% of residents). This is also the case in Vale Royal borough, albeit to a lesser extent (43%) and in East Vale Royal (35%).

• Option C is the least preferred option by a quarter of Cheshire residents (24%). In Vale Royal and East Vale Royal it is the least preferred option by a greater proportion of residents (31% and 27% respectively).

• Most are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. In the county as a whole, just 8% say they do not know what is their most preferred option (10% in Vale Royal). In East Vale Royal, however, many more than in the rest of the borough say that they don’t know, 19%.

• Generally, rather more residents do not know their least preferred option: 18% in Cheshire as a whole and 16% in Vale Royal. However this is rather higher in East Vale Royal - 26%.

Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Cheshire

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 *%

No change 11%

None 1%

Don't know 8% 18%

Base: Cheshire: 1,850 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

20 Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Vale Royal borough

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 30% 43%

Option B 7% 10%

Option C 43% 31%

Other Option 1%

No change 8%

None 1%

Don't know 10% 16%

Base: Vale Royal: 302 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

Preferred Pattern of Local Government – East Vale Royal

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 26% 35%

Option B 17% 11%

Option C 30% 27%

Other Option 2%

No change 6%

Don't know 19% 26%

Base: East Vale Royal: 186 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

21 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 local services, accountability to local people, responding to local people’s wishes and the cost of local services. These four factors apply in each area - Cheshire, Vale Royal and East Vale Royal. No other factor is mentioned by more than 5% of residents in any of the three areas.

Residents tend to identify these issues regardless of their demographic characteristics, although across the county as a whole, younger people (aged 18-34 years) are more likely to identify quality of services whilst the cost of services is a more important issue for those aged 55+. Being accountable to local people is more likely to be identified by those belonging to higher social grades (ABC1) whilst C2DEs are more concerned that the council should respond to local people’s wishes.

Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Cheshire)

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 (top four mentions)

Quality of services 28%

Being accountable 19% to local people

Responding to local 18% people's wishes

Cost of services 16%

Base: 1,850 Cheshire County Council residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

22 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Vale Royal borough)

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 (top four mentions)

Quality of services 31%

Cost of services 19%

Being accountable 18% to local people

Responding to local 17% people's wishes

Base: 302 Vale Royal residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (East Vale Royal)

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 (top four mentions)

Quality of services 32%

Cost of services 16%

Responding to local 15% people's wishes

Being accountable 14% to local people

Base: East Vale Royal: 186 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

23 The Following Sections The following sections look at the data for each of the options put forward by the Committee for consultation. The approach taken is to consider the data for the county as a whole, where sample sizes enable a robust consideration of the findings. Where appropriate, data for Vale Royal and East Vale Royal are then considered in the context of the county-wide data, though caution should be applied where base sizes are small. More details about the findings in Cheshire can be found in MORI’s separate report on county- wide findings.

24 Option A

The Committee’s Option A comprises a single unitary council to serve the whole of Cheshire.

25 In the county as a whole, residents’ reasons for preferring Option A focus primarily on efficiency and value for money (mentioned by 46% of respondents), followed by 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. A broadly similar view applies to Vale Royal.

Reasons for Option A being Most Preferred Option (Cheshire)

Q17 Which [of these] reasons best describe why you like this option most? % Option A (top five reasons)

Council would be more efficient / better 46% value for money

It would create a strong council 29%

Council would be more accountable 24%

It is 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 (Cheshire)

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 large 63% area

I would not reflect local people’s views 39%

It would not reflect local identity 35%

I would not improve council services 29%

It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 23% worst

The council would not be more 23% accountable It's the worst of the available options 23%

Base: 880 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

26 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). This strength of view is also held among those who support Option A in Vale Royal, where 84% feel very or fairly strongly about their preference. The preference is not quite so strong in East Vale Royal, where 76% feel very or fairly strongly about their preference for Option A.

Strength of Feeling for Preferring Option A (Cheshire)

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.

Option B

The Committee’s Option B comprises two unitary councils – one council to serve the districts of Congleton and Macclesfield 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.

29 In the county as a whole, residents’ reasons for their preference for Option B focus primarily on people’s ‘instinct’ and that ‘it is the best’ (mentioned by 31%), followed by the council would be more efficient, 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 the 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%), followed by the reason that is the worst of the available options. Support for this option is low in Vale Royal, precluding further sub-district analysis

Reasons for Option B being Most Preferred Option (Cheshire)

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 money

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 (Cheshire)

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 the 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

30 As with Option A, those residents who favour Option B feel similarly strongly about their preference – 19% feel very strongly and 64% fairly strongly (a total of 83% feeling very or fairly strongly). The strength of feeling of those who support this option in Vale Royal and East Vale Royal area is similar to that of the county as a whole.

Strength of Feeling for Option B (Cheshire)

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

2%1% 13% 19%

64%

Base: 203 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option B are not particularly striking.

Option C

The Committee’s Option C comprises three unitary councils to serve: (1) Congleton and Macclesfield districts combined; (2) Vale Royal and Crewe & Nantwich districts combined; and (3) Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester City districts combined.

33 Cheshire 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 (43%) and local identity (37%), and would be more accountable (31%). On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the view that it would be less efficient (mentioned by 41%). Other key factors are the view that it would not improve council services (28%) and it instinctively would be the worst option (24%). This pattern is broadly similar in both Vale Royal, and East Vale Royal.

Reasons for Option C being Most Preferred Option (Cheshire)

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 (Cheshire)

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 is the worst of the available options 18%

Base: 441 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

34 As with the other options, residents who favour Option C are firm about their preference – 37% feel very strongly and 52% fairly strongly (a total of 89% feeling very or fairly strongly). A similar proportion of Vale Royal residents feel very or fairly strongly about their preference for Option C (88%), though in East Vale Royal, rather fewer (67%) feel very or fairly strongly.

Strength of Feeling for Option C (Cheshire)

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%1%

37%

52%

Base: 807 Cheshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

There are some demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option C. Compared to a county-wide preference of 45%, this option is preferred less by those aged over 55 (39%), and DE residents (37%) within Cheshire as a whole.

4. Preferred New Council Name The Committee also wished to consult on possible names for any new unitary councils. Those respondents who preferred each option were asked about a number of names in relation to that option. They were also invited to nominate 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 county-wide authority).

Preferences of Cheshire residents overall are set out in MORI’s separate report on county-wide findings. Base sizes are low but for Option B, Vale Royal residents show a preference for ‘County of West Cheshire’ (22%), ‘West Cheshire County’ (13%) and ‘West Cheshire’ (12%). Among residents of East Vale Royal, the name ‘East Cheshire’ is preferred by over a third (35%), followed by ‘East Cheshire County’ (15%).

For Option C, both Vale Royal and East Vale Royal residents prefer the name ‘Mid Cheshire County’ (29% and 24% respectively).

5. Community Identity Residents’ Sense of Community

In our research at Stage One of the Committee’s review, MORI asked a suite of questions about residents’ sense of community. The purpose was to help the Committee identify where linkages may or may not exist between local authority areas. For the additional Stage Three research in areas (such as Vale Royal) which the Committee identified could be split in the event of local government reorganisation, MORI asked the same bank of questions in order to help identify these linkages in the affected sub-district areas.

For the purpose of this research, we differentiate between ‘effective community’ and ‘affective community’. We define ‘effective community’ as the sense of place created by visiting practical locations which cater for shopping or leisure needs, work place, or where parents take their children to school. For this, respondents were asked to identify, unprompted, the towns or areas they visit for practical reasons, which therefore form the basis of their effective communities.

We define ‘affective community’ as the sense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to a community: where residents feel they most belong, the town or area they most might identify with. As we pointed out in our Stage One reports, the impact of friends, family and friendly neighbours watching out and supporting people can be considerable. This helps to develop an effective community into an affective one. Effective Communities

As we reported in our Stage One report, the overall picture in Vale Royal is of residents using facilities which are mainly inside the borough, though significant numbers also frequent areas within the Chester City Council, Macclesfield BC and Congleton BC areas. For the borough as a whole, there are two main areas which act as a draw for Vale Royal and East Vale Royal residents alike – Northwich and Winsford. As the table below shows, however, there are some distinctions between the east of the borough (East Vale Royal) and the rest of the borough. Areas within Congleton and Macclesfield districts, particularly Knutsford and Holmes Chapel, are a much stronger practical draw in the east of the borough – unsurprisingly, since they are closer to that part of the district.

Main Food Shopping Four in five Vale Royal residents (78%) undertake their main food shopping inside the borough. The most common destination is the town of Northwich (42%), followed by Winsford (29%). Overall, nine in ten DE residents (92%) stay within Vale Royal borough for their main food shopping, compared with two thirds of ABs (66%). Residents in urban areas are more likely to stay in Vale Royal borough for their food shopping than those in rural areas (85% and 68% respectively).

In East Vale Royal, a smaller proportion of residents (66%) undertake their main food shopping inside Vale Royal borough, with most visiting Northwich (59%); Knutsford, in the Macclesfield district, is the location of 15% of East Vale Royal residents.

39 Clothes and Household Goods Shopping Three in ten residents (29%) generally stay within Vale Royal borough for clothes and household goods shopping. Northwich is the most frequently visited destination for this kind of trip, with one in five residents (21%) visiting the town. Winsford is the next most popular destination (8%). Chester City is a greater draw for residents (36%). Warrington BC area is also significant (12%). A higher proportion of East Vale Royal residents (38%) generally stay within Vale Royal borough for clothes and household goods shopping with 37% going to Northwich. Outside the borough, Macclesfield (17%) and Manchester (15%) are other frequently visited destinations for this kind of trip. Schools Three in ten of our sample in Vale Royal borough (29%) have school-aged children (aged 5-16) living in their household. Nine in ten parents (94%) send their children to school within the Vale Royal borough. The most common destinations are Weaverham and Winsford (21% each). In East Vale Royal, a different picture emerges. Nearly half of parents (45%) send their children to school within the Congleton district with Holmes Chapel the primary destination (45%). A third also send their children to schools in Macclesfield district, just 17% send their children to schools in Vale Royal borough. Places of Work Nearly half of our sample in Vale Royal borough are in full or part-time work (45%). In Vale Royal, nearly half those who work do so within the borough (48%). The next most popular is the Halton area, where 7% of respondents work. Three in five women (58%) work within the Vale Royal borough. In contrast, men are more likely to work in a variety of locations (just two in five, 38%, work within the Vale Royal borough). In East Vale Royal, just over one in ten (12%) work in the Vale Royal borough. Knutsford in Macclesfield district is the most popular destination for work (31%); 12% work in an area in Congleton district. For other household members in work, half do so within the borough (49%), while for East Vale Royal residents, the Macclesfield area is the most popular work location (29%). Leisure and Sporting Activities Two thirds of Vale Royal residents spend their leisure time within the borough (66%), with three in ten visiting Northwich (31%). Chester (15%) the next most popular area. Far fewer East Vale Royal residents (24%) stay in the borough for leisure and sporting activities. Macclesfield district is the most popular area of choice, for over a third of residents (35%). Summary The table below summarises residents’ effective communities. Full details of all the locations identified by residents are set out in the computer tabulations available under separate cover.

40 Effective Communities

Q Which town or area do you generally go for/to…

% of residents identifying Q28: Q29: Q30: Q31: Q32: Q33: town or area (where at least 3%) Main Shop for Child’s Main Other Leisure & food clothes school place adults sporting shopping & of work place activities house- of work hold goods (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) %%%%%% 1. Vale Royal residents Base: Vale Royal residents (302) (302) (65) (137) (147) (302)

Vale Royal Borough Council area 78 29 94 48 49 66

Other Cheshire districts Chester City Council area 5 36 5 2 3 11 Ellesmere Port & Neston BC area 4 2 0 3 2 4 Crewe & Nantwich BC area 2 3 2 6 4 5 Macclesfield BC area 1 1 0 6 8 5 Congleton BC area 0 * 1 3 3 1

Other Authorities Halton BC area 7 2 0 7 5 4 Manchester City Council area 0 7 0 6 8 5 Warrington BC area 2 12 0 4 4 4 Liverpool City Council area 0 3 0 2 3 1

2. East Vale Royal residents Base: East Vale Royal residents (186) (186) (35) (73) (89) (186)

Vale Royal Borough Council area 66 38 17 12 21 24

Other Cheshire districts Congleton BC area 14 2 45 12 23 13 Crewe & Nantwich BC area 1 1 0 1 5 5 Macclesfield BC area 16 20 33 41 29 35

Other Authorities Trafford MBC area 0 6 0 0 3 1 Manchester City Council area 0 15 0 8 8 4 Stockport MBC area 0 0 4 3 2 1 Stoke on Trent CC area 0 3 0 0 0 1

(1) Asked only of these with school aged children (2) Asked only of workers (3) Asked only in households with someone else in work

41 Affective Communities

In the borough as a whole, most residents associate with a town inside the borough (81%); over two in five residents (43%) identify most with Northwich, with one in five identifying with Winsford (19%). In East Vale Royal, more respondents most identify with towns outside the borough; notably Knutsford (44%) in Macclesfield district.

Association with Town – Vale Royal borough

Q27 Overall, which town do you currently most associate yourself with? UNPROMPTED

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Vale Royal Borough Council area

Northwich 43%

Winsford 19%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Vale Royal Borough Council area

Frodsham 10%

Chester 8%

Base: 302 Vale Royal residents 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

Association with Town – East Vale Royal

Q27 Overall, which town do you currently most associate yourself with? UNPROMPTED

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Vale Royal Borough Council area

Northwich 33%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Vale Royal Borough Council area

Knutsford 44%

Holmes Chapel 8%

Sandbach 4%

Base: 186 East Vale Royal residents 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

42 Appendices

1. Option Showcards 2. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 3. Research Methodology 4. Marked-up Questionnaires Vale Royal borough East Vale Royal

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

E OPTIONS CARD: Option A: ary 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 ceremonialduffield and related purposes. J20362/6 E OPTIONS CARD: Option B: ary 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. duffield Cheshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes. J20362/6 E OPTIONS CARD: Option C: itary 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. duffield 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.

In MORI’s main research, in the forty-four two-tier districts in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. In addition, in the seven districts – including Vale Royal - where the Committee required additional interviews in order to obtain further information, a total of some 2,000 additional interviews took place.

This report sets out the findings from MORI’s research in Vale Royal Borough Council area, Cheshire. As part of the main research, 302 interviews took place across the borough. MORI undertook additional interviews in the east of the borough. In East Vale Royal, the total interviewed in that area was 186 (including both the main research and the additional interviews).

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. Full computer tabulations have been provided in a separate volume. Interpretation of the Data

It should be remembered that a sample, not the entire population of Vale Royal, 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.

49 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 2 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

50 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

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.

Appendix 4 - Marked-up Questionnaires