sign in sign up
<<
Home , Carlton in Cleveland, Craven, Hambleton District, Nunnington, Richmondshire, Ryedale

Community Research in Borough Council Area 2003

Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for

October 2003

Contents

Introduction 1 Executive Summary 4 Local Communities 6 Defining Communities 6 Identifying Communities 6 Identity with the Local Community in the Harrogate Borough Council Area 7 Overall Identity 7 Effective Communities 9 Involvement 13 Affective Communities 15 Bringing Effective and Affective Communities Together 16 Local Authority Communities 18 Belonging to Harrogate Borough Council Area 18 Belonging to North Council Area 20 Knowledge and Attitudes towards Local Governance 23 Knowledge of Local Governance 23 Involvement with Local Governance 24 Administrative Boundary Issues 24 Appendices 1. Methodology – Quantitative 2. Methodology - Qualitative 3. Sub-Group Definitions 4. Place Name Gazetteer 5. Qualitative Topic Guide 6. Marked-up Questionnaire

Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Introduction

Research Aims This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England (referred to in this report as "The Committee") in the Harrogate Borough Council area. The aim of this research is to establish the patterns of community identity in the area.

Survey Coverage MORI has undertaken research in all 44 two-tier district or borough council areas in the North East, North West and regions. The research covers two-tier local authority areas only; the results may however identify issues which overlap with adjacent areas. Reports and data for other two-tier areas are provided under separately.

Harrogate Borough Council ( CC)

Richmondshire DC (North Yorkshire CC) Hambleton DC (North Yorks CC)

Craven DC (North Yorkshire CC) Harrogate BC (North Yorkshire CC)

City of Data is available from two-tier authorities in these County Council areas: Council Cheshire Durham Bradford City City Northumberland Council DC North Yorkshire Council (N Yorks CC) Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council CC = County Council

Source: MORI

Methodology Both quantitative and qualitative research has been carried out in the Harrogate Borough Council area, as in each two-tier district council area in the Yorkshire & Humber region.

Quantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents think, by measuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions in the context of an interview, rather than holding an in-depth discussion on the issues involved. It provides statistically robust data.

1 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Within each two-tier district or borough council area, some 300 quantitative face- to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 19th June and 31st August 2003. A total of 2,171 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the North Yorkshire County Council area, with 304 interviews being conducted in the Harrogate Borough 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 or borough council area by age and gender, and for aggregate county, regional and overall findings by the population size of each individual district or borough council area. Full computer tabulations have been provided separately.

Qualitative research helps probe the thinking processes and feelings of residents, and attempts to answer the question as to ‘why?’ residents might feel the way they do.

In the Harrogate Borough Council area, a qualitative discussion group was held to establish how participants felt about their local community. The findings from this group were analysed within the context of the findings from discussion groups in the other 43 district or borough council areas under consideration by this study. Discussion groups do not seek to offer statistical validity from a representative sample, but seek to explore attitudes and opinions in greater depth than the quantitative research allows. It should also be borne in mind that, in order to get an overview of the in-depth feelings in each area as well as explore linkages across the region, only one discussion group was held in each district or borough council area. The findings from each group should therefore be viewed in the context of the other discussion groups which have taken place, as well as the quantitative findings. This is because the findings from participants from just one discussion group may be unrepresentative of general opinion, and misleading if viewed out of context.

Report Structure This report provides an overview of the findings from the research for the Harrogate Borough Council area. Individual summary reports for the research conducted within each of the other two-tier authorities in the Yorkshire and the Humber region have been issued 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.

2 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Contact Details The research was carried out by MORI for COI Communications, acting on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England.

Simon Atkinson, Research Director, MORI Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive, MORI Jaime Rose, Senior Research Executive, MORI Neil Wholey, Senior Research Executive, MORI

79-81 Borough Road SE1 1FY

Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800

Email: [email protected] Internet: www.mori.com

3 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Executive Summary

• Residents in the Harrogate Borough Council area identify most strongly with their local neighbourhood/village, and their town/nearest town. They show less identity with the administrative areas of the local two-tier councils. This is not an unusual finding, as people will generally identify with the immediate area where they have made their home, rather than a large geographical area.

• The Harrogate Borough Council area is largely rural, with activity concentrated on the town of Harrogate itself. Around three in five residents most associate themselves with the town of Harrogate, with only around one in eight associating with . One in fifteen residents most associate themselves with York, in the neighbouring City Council area. Residents’ sense of belonging to the District Council area (strongly held by 43%) is among the lowest in the county.

• "Effective Communities" are 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. Harrogate is a particularly key destination for those in higher social grades, with those in lower social grades more concentrated around visiting Ripon, for food, clothes and household goods shopping, as well as for sports and leisure activities.

• As has been found in other district and borough council areas nearby, Leeds and York are popular places for clothes shopping visits and leisure activities (particularly amongst the younger residents of the Harrogate Borough Council area), as well as common places of work. However, few residents feel that they ‘belong’ to these cities. This suggests that they may be good places to visit, but they do not form lasting community ties.

• "Affective Communities" describes the sense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to a community. Identity with the local neighbourhood is naturally stronger for those who take part in community activities and those residents who are most satisfied with the quality of services provided at a district level are most likely to feel that they belong to the area and to be active within it.

• Overall, four in five Harrogate Borough Council residents feel they belong to a local area or community within this council area. This is broadly in line with other district or borough council areas in the North Yorkshire County Council area. Nevertheless, participants in the discussion group saw some commonalities of interest with the rural districts to the north, east and west of the borough.

4 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Interpreting the Findings • Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative research should be taken in isolation of the other, and nor should the findings of one district, borough, county or region be taken in isolation of the overall perspective provided by research in other areas. Just as residents themselves are at the centre of a number of different communities, so this research is at the centre of a wider body of research that provides context and a sense of place to the individual findings for each area.

©MORI/18710 Simon Atkinson Emma Holloway Jaime Rose Neil Wholey

5 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Local Communities

Defining Communities Communities, in the context of this research, are a sense of place. The strength of this sense of place is related to the involvement residents have in their communities, whether with people in their own immediate neighbourhood, or with places further afield through, for example, shopping trips or work.

For residents there are a number of different and overlapping communities:

• Administrative Communities: the sense of place created by local council administrative boundaries.

• Effective Communities: the sense of place created by visiting practical locations which cater for shopping or leisure needs, or are a place of work, or where parents take their children to school.

• Affective Communities: the sense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to a community. This is defined as where residents feel they most belong, the town or area they most identify with, and if they met someone from outside their region, where they might say they came from.

The aim of this study is to gain insight into the effective and affective communities of residents in the Harrogate Borough Council area, and how these might relate to administrative boundaries.

Identifying Communities Multifaceted communities require a multifaceted approach to identifying them. In both the qualitative and quantitative research, residents were asked to identify the communities in which they felt they belonged and, from the different perspectives of these methodologies, to obtain a rounded picture of these communities. Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative research should therefore be taken in isolation of the other, and nor should the findings of one district, borough, county or region be taken in isolation of the overall perspective provided by research in other areas. Just as residents themselves are at the centre of a number of different communities, so this research is at the centre of a wider body of research that provides context and a sense of place to the individual findings for each area.

6 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Identity with the Local Community in the Harrogate Borough Council Area

Overall Identity Past research conducted by MORI shows that residents often feel they belong most strongly with the community that forms their own immediate neighbourhood or village, with a slightly less strong identity with their town as a whole or the nearest town. In the Harrogate Borough Council area one third of residents (32%) feel that they very strongly belong to their neighbourhood or village, with nearly one half feeling they fairly strongly belong (46%). Residents’ sense of belonging to their town or nearest town was not quite as strong (23% and 49% respectively).

Across all the qualitative groups the discussions centred around local geographical areas. In the Harrogate Borough Council discussion group respondents identified with their immediate neighbourhood or village. While some related to large towns and cities where they shop or work – York to the east and Bradford and Leeds to the south – they did not see themselves as belonging to these areas.

Belonging to Neighbourhood, Village or Town Q22 How strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the following areas? a. This neighbourhood (asked in urban areas)/this village or the nearest village (asked in rural areas) b. This town (asked in urban areas)/the nearest town (asked in rural areas)

49% 46%

32%

23% 21% 17%

4% 5% 1% 1%

Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very Not at all No opinion strongly strongly Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

7 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

The table below shows the differences across the two-tier council areas in the North Yorkshire County Council area. There is a broadly similar pattern of identity with neighbourhoods and towns in all seven North Yorkshire districts (with the exception of the less strong identity with the town in ).

Q22 How strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the following areas? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No strongly strongly strongly strongly opinion/not stated Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority

This neighbourhood (asked in urban areas)/ village/or the nearest village (asked in rural areas)

Craven DC 40 47 11 2 1 Hambleton DC 48 39 12 2 0 Harrogate BC 32 46 17 4 1 DC 50 35 12 3 * DC 45 42 12 2 0 Scarborough BC 40 42 14 4 1 Selby DC 39 45 13 1 2

This town (asked in urban areas)/the nearest town (asked in rural areas)

Craven DC 29 46 20 4 2 Hambleton DC 29 45 21 5 0 Harrogate BC 23 49 21 5 1 Richmondshire DC 28 42 23 7 * Ryedale DC 29 46 19 5 * Scarborough BC 32 38 25 4 1 Selby DC 19 42 31 7 1 Source: MORI

8 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Effective Communities For the purpose of this research we have defined "Effective Communities" 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. In the quantitative survey, respondents were asked to identify, unprompted, the towns or areas they visit for practical reasons, which therefore form the basis of their effective communities. In all the definitions of “effective communities”, the town of Harrogate itself provides a very clear focus.

Main food shopping: Over four in five residents (83%) do their main food shopping inside the Harrogate Borough Council area, the most frequent destinations being the town of Harrogate itself (61%), followed by Ripon (12%) and (8%). While Ripon is visited in particular by those in lower social grades (24% of DEs1 visit Ripon), Harrogate is a more common destination for ABs2 and C2s3 (67% and 75% respectively). York (in York City Council area) is the most popular destination outside the Harrogate Borough Council area, but is nevertheless visited by only one in 20 residents for food shopping (5%). Residents in urban areas (96%) are more likely to stay in the Harrogate Borough Council area for their food shopping than those in rural areas (65%).

Clothes and household goods shopping: Three quarters of residents (73%) generally stay within the Harrogate Borough Council area for clothes and household goods shopping. Harrogate is a very important town, some two-thirds doing their household shopping there (66%). Leeds and York are the most popular destinations for trips outside the local area, with around one in ten residents visiting each of these cities (9% and 11% respectively). Leeds is particularly popular for 18-24 year olds (27%), while York is more popular with middle aged shoppers (15%).

Leisure and Sporting Activities: Seven in ten residents mainly stay in the Harrogate Borough Council area for leisure and sporting activities (72%). Harrogate town itself is the most popular destination (57%), especially among higher social grades and younger people. York is another destination for leisure and sporting activities (12%) and around one in five 18-24 year olds visit Leeds for this purpose (19%). Ripon is visited by one in 12 residents (8%).

Places of work: Nearly two thirds of our sample in the Harrogate Borough Council area are in full or part time work (62%). Of those in work, around the same proportion stay in the Harrogate Borough Council area (62%). The next most popular work places are Leeds (11%) and Ripon (10%).

1 DE: semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, the unemployed and state pensions. 2 AB: professionals such as doctors, senior managers/executives, upper grades of services - i.e. those on the highest income. 3 C2: skilled manual worker.

9 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

A similar picture is seen when residents were asked where other adults in the household work. It should be noted that nearly one fifth of households have no other adult in the household (20%), or no other adult who is working (22%). Of those in work over half work in the Harrogate Borough Council area (56%), and a significant minority work in the Leeds Met Council area (22%).

School: A quarter of our sample (26%) in the Harrogate Borough Council area have school aged children (aged 5-16) living in their household. Nearly nine in ten parents (86%) send their children to school within the Harrogate Borough Council area, the most common mentions being Harrogate (50%) and (13%).

10 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Q Which town or area do you generally go for/to…. % of residents identifying Q4: Main Q5: Shop Q11: Leisure Q9: Main Q10: Other Q7: Child’s town or area (where at least food for clothes & sporting place of adults school (3) 3%) shopping & house- activities work (1) place of hold goods work (2) Base: Harrogate Borough Council (304) (304) (304) (192) (178) (77) Residents %%%%%% Inside Council Area Boroughbridge803334 Harrogate 61 66 57 38 39 50 Kirby Overblow001013 Knaresborough 2 * 7 5 2 13 Markington 0 0 * 1 0 3 Pateley Bridge001114 Ripon 12 6 8 10 9 5 Other 000227

Outside Council Area Leeds 1 9 9 11 16 3 2 0 1 * 1 3 4*4460 York 5111216 1

All over/anywhere/varies 0 0 * 1 3 0 None/nowhere 0 1 6 0 0 0 Don't know/not stated 1 3 6 7 6 1

(1) Asked only of workers (2) Households with someone else on work (3) Asked only of those with school aged children * Response between 0 and 0.5% Source: MORI

11 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

The table below summarises the data provided on the previous page, by summarising the towns identified in the above table into the different two - or single - tier authorities in which they reside.

Q Which town or area do you generally go for/to…. % of residents identifying Q4: Main Q5: Shop Q11: Q9: Main Q10: Other Q7: Child’s town or area (where at least food for clothes Leisure & place of adults school (3) 3%) shopping & house- sporting work (1) place of hold goods activities work (2) Base: Harrogate Borough Council (304) (304) (304) (192) (178) (77) Residents %%%%%% Harrogate BC 83 73 72 62 56 86

Other North Yorkshire County Two-Tier Authorities Hambleton DC 2 * 2 2 3 4

Other Authorities Leeds City Council 5 9 13 15 22 3 5 11 12 1 6 1

(1) Asked only of workers (2) Households with someone else on work (3) Asked only of those with school aged children * Response between 0 and 0.5% Source: MORI

12 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Involvement Past research conducted by MORI shows that involvement can be a key element in helping to understand communities4. In the Harrogate Borough Council area, 6% of residents feel that they are involved a great deal in their local community, a quarter a fair amount (24%), over a half not very much (54%) and 15% not at all: a pattern which is found in most other North Yorkshire districts.

Q19 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community? A great deal A fair Not very Not at all Don’t amount much know/not stated Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority Craven DC 9 32 50 8 * Hambleton DC 5 36 47 11 1 Harrogate BC62454151 Richmondshire DC 10 33 41 15 1 Ryedale DC 6 37 45 11 * Scarborough BC 6 26 52 14 1 Selby DC72751141 Source: MORI

Feeling involved in the local community in general is naturally higher for those who take part in local activities. Half of residents (50%) across the Harrogate Borough Council area state that they are a member of an organised group (e.g. sports clubs or team, religious organisation, tenants’ or residents’ association or council). Four fifths (78%) of those who feel involved in the community do so compared with two-fifths (39%) who are not so much involved. ABs are more likely to participate in these activities than DEs (59% versus 44%).

4 Young, K., Gosschalk, B. & Hatter, W. In Search of Community Identity - MORI analysis conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1995/96.

13 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

The table below shows the breakdown of the types of activities different groups take part in.

Q18a People do different types of activities in their communities. Have you recently been involved in any of the activities listed on this card?

Any None

Informal/ Organised Presenting unorgani- groups your views sed activity Base: Overall (304) % 50 (32) (26) (13) 49 Age % 18-24 (26) % 46 (27) (23) (4) 54 25-34 (52) % 42 (31) (25) (2) 58 35-54 (116) % 55 (35) (27) (17) 45 55-64 (43) % 51 (33) (30) (17) 49 65-74 (34) % 58 (38) (23) (24) 36 75+ (33) % 42 (21) (27) (9) 58 Social grouping AB (93) % 59 (38) (39) (19) 41 C1 (96) % 51 (29) (29) (13) 48 C2 (52) % 42 (30) (12) (4) 58 DE (62) % 44 (30) (16) (11) 55 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly strongly (237) % 52 (34) (27) (13) 47 Not very/not at all (65) % 44 (26) (25) (12) 56 strongly Involved in community Great deal/fair amount (91) % 78 (50) (50) (23) 22 Not very much/nothing (211) % 39 (25) (16) (9) 60 Length of residency Under 2 years (54) % 43 (26) (24) (2) 57 3-10 years (91) % 52 (39) (27) (15) 48 11 or more years (159) % 52 (30) (26) (16) 47 Source: MORI

14 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Affective Communities For the purpose of this research we have defined "Affective Communities" as the sense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to a community. This is defined as where residents feel they most belong, the town or area they most might identify with, and if they met someone from outside their region, where they would say they came from.

The impact of friends, family and friendly neighbours watching out and supporting people can be considerable and was raised in the qualitative discussion groups. This helps to develop an effective community into an affective one.

Two in five Harrogate Borough Council residents (56%) identify most with Harrogate, with 12% identifying with Ripon and 7% with Knaresborough and 4% with Wetherby. Outside the district, residents identify with York (6%), Wetherby (4%) and Leeds (3%).

Association with Town Q3 Overall, which town do you currently most associate yourself with? UNPROMPTED Top four mentions of towns inside Harrogate Borough Council area Harrogate 56% Ripon 12% Knaresborough 7% Boroughbridge 2% Top six mentions of towns outside Harrogate Borough Council area York 6% Wetherby 4% Leeds 3% Bentham 2% 2% Thirsk 2%

Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

15 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

A similar picture is seen when residents are asked to which area or community they feel they most belong. This question was asked after the bank of questions on effective communities, where people shopped etc. Three quarters of residents identify with an area within the Harrogate Borough Council area (77%), with the majority identifying with Harrogate (39%), followed by Ripon (7%) and Knaresborough (6%).

Few residents say they most identify with either Leeds or York, despite visits there, in particular for work, clothes and household goods shopping and leisure activities. This suggests that these places may be seen as ‘good days out’ or part of some residents’ working lives, but do not form an integral bond with the people of the Harrogate Borough Council area.

Association with Area or Community Q20 People sometimes say that they belong to more than one local area or community. Which one area or community do you now feel you most belong to? UNPROMPTED Top four mentions of area or community inside Harrogate Borough Council area Harrogate 39% Ripon 7%

Knaresborough 6% Tockwith 5% Top four mentions of area or community outside Harrogate Borough Council area 1% Leeds Long Marton 1%

North Yorkshire 1% Wetherby 1%

Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

Bringing Effective and Affective Communities Together The research shows that many of the effective and affective communities overlap and are strongly related to each other. Residents have identified a wide range of villages, towns and cities across the Harrogate Borough Council area of which a simple question can now be asked: does the administrative area in which residents live match the effective and affective communities that they have identified?

Staying with the quantitative survey (Q20), the following map shows the areas with which residents identify outside their own administrative district or borough council area (this includes data from areas outside the Harrogate Borough Council area). As discussed, over three quarters of residents (77%) identify with areas inside Harrogate Borough Council's boundaries, with relatively little identification with other council areas.

16 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Harrogate Borough Council - Quantitative Area Identity 77% of Harrogate BC residents identify with local area/ Richmondshire DC (North Yorkshire CC) community within Hambleton DC the Council area (North Yorks CC) 1%

2%

Craven DC 1% (North Yorkshire CC) Harrogate BC 1% (North Yorkshire CC)

*% City of Data is available from two-tier authorities in these County 2% York Council areas: Council Cheshire Durham Cumbria Bradford City Leeds City 1% Lancashire Northumberland Council Council Selby DC North Yorkshire (N Yorks CC) Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council CC = County Council

Base: c.300 Council Residents in each Borough or District Council area 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

In the qualitative discussion group, participants perceived common interest with the largely rural districts to the west, north and east. However, while the Leeds conurbation to the south clearly formed part of residents’ “effective community”, it was not an area with which they would necessarily associate themselves.

Harrogate Borough Council - Qualitative Area Identity

Richmondshire DC (North Yorkshire CC) Hambleton DC (North Yorks CC)

Ripon Craven DC (North Yorkshire CC) Knaresborough Harrogate BC Harrogate (North City of Data is available from two-tier Yorkshire CC) authorities in these County York Council areas: Council Cheshire Durham Cumbria Bradford City Lancashire Leeds City Northumberland Council Selby DC North Yorkshire Council (N Yorks CC) Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council CC = County Council

Source: MORI

17 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Local Authority Communities

Belonging to Harrogate Borough Council Area Identity with district or borough council names varies across the region. The qualitative research shows that people do not always relate to the name, and that the length of time the council has been established could play a key role in name recognition. Seven percent of residents very strongly identify with the Harrogate Borough Council area, with over a third (36%) saying their identity is fairly strong. This is balanced by either feeling not very strongly (41%) or not at all strongly (14%) attached to the area.

Identification with Harrogate Borough Council area Q22c How strongly do you feel that you belong to the Harrogate Borough Council area?

No opinion/not stated 2% Very strongly Not at all strongly 7% 14%

Not very strongly 36% Fairly strongly

41%

Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

The sense of belonging in Harrogate (strongly held by 44%) was among the lowest found in the North Yorkshire districts.

Q22c How strongly do you feel that you belong to the Harrogate Borough Council area? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No strongly strongly strongly strongly opinion/not stated Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority Craven DC 11 46 35 7 2 Hambleton DC 6 46 40 3 5 Harrogate BC73641142 Richmondshire DC 4 38 49 5 5 Ryedale DC 13 52 29 4 1 Scarborough BC 6 42 45 3 4 Selby DC 3 39 49 9 1 Source: MORI

18 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

The table below shows differences between different types of residents, and their identity with Harrogate Borough Council, especially by satisfaction with the quality of council services (as discussed previously) and area of residence. This suggests that residents who are more satisfied with the quality of the services that the district and county councils provide are more likely to identify with the Harrogate Borough Council area. Those living in urban areas are more likely to feel that they strongly belong to the Harrogate Borough Council area than those in rural areas.

Q22c How strongly do you feel you belong to the Harrogate Borough Council area? Very Fairly Not very Not at No strongly strongly strongly all opinion strongly /not stated Base:

Overall (304) % 73641142 Satisfaction with district council services Very/fairly (219) % 941418 1 satisfied Very/fairly (42) % 72240310 dissatisfied Area Urban (181) % 10 41 37 10 1 Rural (123) % 32847192 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly (237) % 93941102 strongly Not very/not at (65) % 32740292 all strongly Involved in community Great deal/ fair (91) % 940427 2 amount Not very much/ (211) % 73541171 nothing Source: MORI

19 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Belonging to North Yorkshire County Council Area The picture is slightly different for identity with the North Yorkshire County Council area, although very few residents place themselves at the extremes of the scale. In the discussion group, participants did not generally feel attachment to the name ‘North Yorkshire’. Rather there was an association with North Yorkshire as a whole.

Identification with North Yorkshire County Council area Q22d How strongly do you feel that you belong to the North Yorkshire Council area?

No opinion/not stated 2% Very strongly Not at all strongly 7% 14%

Not very strongly 37% Fairly strongly 41%

Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

Residents feel equally strongly about belonging (or not belonging) to the County Council area as the Borough Council area. The proportion who feel strongly they belong to the County Council area places Harrogate midway in the list of districts in the county.

Q22d How strongly do you feel that you belong to the North Yorkshire County Council area? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No strongly strongly strongly strongly opinion/not stated Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority

Craven DC53742133 Hambleton DC 12 43 33 4 8 Harrogate BC73741142 Richmondshire DC 3 29 49 5 14 Ryedale DC 18 38 36 6 2 Scarborough BC 5 33 54 3 5 Selby DC33251122 Source: MORI

20 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Identity with the County Council area is slightly stronger for residents who feel involved in their local community, and identify with their neighbourhood, although interestingly the length of residency does not appear to affect the level of identification with either the County Council or Borough Council areas.

Q22d How strongly do you feel you belong to the North Yorkshire County Council area? Very Fairly Not Not at No strongly strongly very all opinion strongly strongly /not stated Base:

Overall (304) % 73741142 Length of residency Under 2 years (54) % 63942122 3-10 years (91) % 44035191 11 or more years (159) % 93443122 Social grouping: AB (93) % 84335140 C1 (96) % 53348141 C2 (52) % 93435166 DE (62) % 53643152 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly (237) % 83942101 strongly Not very/not at (65) % 33134312 all strongly Involved in community Great deal/ fair (91) % 11 42 40 5 2 amount Not very much/ (211) % 53541181 nothing Source: MORI

21 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Residents are just as likely to identify with the Borough Council as the County Council area.

Q22 How strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the following areas? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No strongly strongly strongly strongly opinion/ not stated Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council residents % % % % % This neighbourhood (asked in urban 32 46 17 4 1 areas)/ village/or the nearest village (asked in rural areas) This town (asked in urban areas)/the 23 49 21 5 1 nearest town (asked in rural areas) Harrogate Borough Council area 7 36 41 14 2 North Yorkshire County Council area 7 37 41 14 2 Source: MORI

22 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Knowledge and Attitudes towards Local Governance

Knowledge of Local Governance A third (33%) of residents across the Harrogate Borough Council area say that they know a fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, with a further five per cent saying they know a great deal. The majority of residents either say they know not very much (53%) or nothing at all (9%). In general it is middle aged residents, and those in higher social grades, who say they have more knowledge about the services they provide.

Around a half of residents (57%) are able to spontaneously name "Harrogate Borough Council" as responsible for local government services in their neighbourhood. Awareness of the full correct name is lower among those in lower social grades (46% of DEs were correct, compared to 59% of ABs, 64% of C1s and 54% of C2s).

Fewer residents spontaneously mention North Yorkshire County Council as responsible for local government services in their neighbourhood (26%), and it is more likely that those in higher social grades will do so (42% of ABs, 26% of C1s were correct, compared to 9% of C2s and 16% of DEs).

Overall, a third of residents (35%) fail spontaneously to name either of the full council names correctly. However, it should be noted that some residents named variations on Harrogate Borough Council: Harrogate Council (5%) and Harrogate District Council (2%) and around less than one percent name a neighbouring council. One in five residents (22%) fail to mention any council name, rising to 26% of those who do not strongly identify with the Harrogate Borough Council area. This is consistent across all types of resident.

Research by MORI in recent years has shown low awareness of council services, but when prompted the majority correctly identify the responsibilities of Harrogate Borough Council as rubbish collection (82% identify the Borough Council as responsible), street cleaning (77% correct), council housing (66% correct) and Council Tax benefit/housing benefit (60% correct). A similar level of knowledge is seen for the responsibilities of North Yorkshire County Council: schools/education (76% correct), fire service (65% correct), libraries (63% correct) and social services (59% correct).

23 Community Research in Harrogate Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Involvement with Local Governance As the discussion groups showed, in general, and in line with MORI's experience in local government research, people tend to stop short of wanting to get involved in the work of local authorities - unless they identify serious problems or concerns with what the council is doing. In the Harrogate Borough Council area about half (51%) of residents like to know what local councils are doing, but are happy to let them get on with their job. The findings are consistent across different types of residents.

Interest in Local Governance Q14 Which of the statements on this card comes closest to your own view of the councils in this area? I’m not interested in what local councils do, or whether they do 2% their job I’m not interested in what local councils do, as long as they do 22% their job I like to know what local councils are doing, but I’m happy to let them 51% get on with their job I would like to have more of a say in what local councils do and the 19% services they provide I already work for, or am involved with, local councils and 4% the services they provide

Don’t know 1%

Base: 304 Harrogate Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

Administrative Boundary Issues The qualitative research focused on issues for reorganisation. Across all the discussion groups some people struggled with concepts regarding issues for reorganisation, as it is not within their usual scope of reference or experience. We know that there is a general lack of knowledge about the effects and impact of reorganisation, and we need to bear this in mind when thinking about the research.

In the Harrogate Borough Council area, discussion group residents concentrated on keeping the boundaries of local authorities small and close to the local community it serves. Nevertheless, there was a recognition of commonality of interest with the largely rural district to the east, west and north. While the name ‘North Yorkshire’ had no great resonance for residents (as we have found generally in our qualitative work in the county), ‘Harrogate’ had a very strong one. In the quantitative survey when asked to state the single most important issue to take into account residents saw the quality of services (22%) as the single most important consideration if boundaries were to change, closely followed by the need to respond to local people’s wishes (20%).

24 Appendices

1. Methodology – Quantitative 2. Methodology - Qualitative 3. Sub-Group Definitions 4. Place Name Gazetteer 5. Qualitative Topic Guide 6. Marked-up Questionnaire

Appendix 1: Methodology - Quantitative

Overview Quantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents might think, by measuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions in the context of an interview, rather than holding an in-depth discussion on the issues involved. It provides statistically robust data.

Within each two-tier district or borough council area, some 300 quantitative face- to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 19th June and 31st August 2003. A total of 2,171 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the North Yorkshire County Council area, with 304 interviews being conducted in the Harrogate Borough 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 or borough council area by age and gender, and for aggregate county, regional and overall findings by the population size of each individual district or borough council area. 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 the Harrogate Borough Council area, 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. 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. This table on the next page 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

2,171 (e.g. total number of interviews in North 122 Yorkshire) 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 356 or borough council area) 100 6 9 10 50 8 13 14 Source: MORI

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 578 district or borough council areas) 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 2: Methodology – Qualitative

Overview Qualitative research helps probe the thinking processes and feelings of residents, and attempts to answer the question as to ‘why?’ residents might feel the way they do. Discussion groups do not seek to offer statistical validity from a representative sample. In the Harrogate Borough Council area, a qualitative discussion group was held to establish how residents feel about their local community. The findings from this group were analysed within the context of the findings from discussion groups in the other 43 district or borough council areas under consideration by this study. The dates and locations of the groups held in the North Yorkshire County Council area are listed below.

Discussion Group Timetable Location Date Craven DC 25th July 2003 Hambleton DC 15th July 2003 Harrogate BC Harrogate 17th July 2003 Richmondshire DC Richmond 17th July 2003 Ryedale DC Malton 1st July 2003 Scarborough BC Scarborough 16th July 2003 Selby DC Selby 2nd July 2003

Interpretation of the Data It should also be borne in mind that, in order to get an overview of the in-depth feelings in each area as well as explore linkages across the region, only one discussion group was held in each district or borough council area. The findings from each group should therefore be viewed in the context of the other discussion groups which have taken place, as well as the quantitative findings. This is because the findings from participants in one discussion group may be unrepresentative of general opinion, and misleading if viewed out of context.

Appendix 3: Sub-Group Definitions

The sub-groups discussed in this report (sometimes referred to as crossbreaks) can be found across the top of each computer tabulation (issued separately) as column headings and are typically the demographic sub groups: gender, age, social class etc. Viewing the results in this way can highlight any notable differences in the responses of these different types of respondent. Crossbreaks can also be used to show relationships to different questions. For example, there may be a relationship between identity with council area and the age of the respondent (a table is provided for this).

Crossbreaks provided for each question Title Sub-group Source Gender Male Demographics Female Demographics Age 18-24 Demographics 25-34 Demographics 35-54 Demographics 55-64 Demographics 65-74 Demographics 75+ Demographics Social Class AB Demographics C1 Demographics C2 Demographics DE Demographics Car(s) in household Yes Demographics None Demographics Children in household Yes Demographics No Demographics Length of residency Under 2 years Demographics 3-10 years Demographics 11 or more years Demographics Involvement in community Great deal/fair amount Q19 Not very much/nothing Q19 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly strongly Q22a Not very/not at all strongly Q22a Identify with town Very/fairly strongly Q22b Not very/not at all strongly Q22b Identify with district/borough council area Very/fairly strongly Q22c Not very/not at all strongly Q22c Identify with county council area Very/fairly strongly Q22d Not very/not at all strongly Q22d Quality of district/borough council services Very/fairly satisfied Q16 Very/fairly dissatisfied Q16 Quality of county councils services Very/fairly satisfied Q17 Very/fairly dissatisfied Q17 Correctly identify District/borough council Q12a/b County council Q12a/b Neither Q12a/b Area Urban Sample Point Rural Sample Point Location Periphery Sample Point Not in periphery Sample Point Source: MORI Crossbreak Definitions Although some crossbreaks are straightforward, such as gender and age, the following definitions should help in using the above crossbreaks.

Social Class: These are standard classifications used in research, and are based on occupation of the chief income earner in the household. 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 the 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: This is a standard indicator. 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.

Location: This is a new indicator designed specifically for this survey. Periphery is defined as any interview conducted in a sample point within three miles of the district/borough council border. All other interviews are classed as "Not in periphery". Appendix 4: Place Name Gazetteer Below is a list of the towns and areas identified in the quantitative survey across questions 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 21, and the two-tier or single tier council area they are within. The list includes all towns and areas mentioned in the surveys covering the Yorkshire and the Humber region.

Gazetteer (A-C) Place Name Two-tier or Single-tier Council Area Ryedale District Council Selby District Council Richmondshire District Council Selby District Council Selby District Council Barton Richmondshire District Council Council Bentham Craven District Council Bilborough Nottingham City Council Boroughbridge Harrogate Borough Council Boston Spa Leeds City Council Bradford Bradford City Council Brampton Carlisle City Council Brayton Selby District Council Bridlington District Council Brompton-on-Swale Richmondshire District Council Selby District Council Burniston Scarborough Borough Council Craven District Council Byram Selby District Council Selby District Council Carcroft Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Hambleton District Council Castleford Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council Castleton Scarborough Borough Council Catterick Richmondshire District Council Richmondshire District Council Claughton Wyre Borough Council Richmondshire District Council Close House Wear Valley District Council Metropolitan Borough Council Craven District Council Cowling Craven District Council Craven Craven District Council Crossgates Scarborough Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (D-K) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Danby Scarborough Borough Council Darlington Darlington Borough Council Dewsbury Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council Doncaster Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Driffield East Riding of Yorkshire District Council Hambleton District Council Hambleton District Council Eastfield Scarborough Borough Council Selby District Council Craven District Council Scarborough Borough Council Craven District Council Craven District Council Richmondshire District Council Craven District Council East Riding of Yorkshire District Council Craven District Council Hambleton District Council Grosmont Scarborough Borough Council and Cleveland Borough Council Richmondshire District Council Hambleton Selby District Council Harrogate Harrogate Borough Council Hartlepool Hartlepool Borough Council Richmondshire District Council Hebden Craven District Council Ryedale District Council Horton-in- Craven District Council Huby Hambleton District Council Hull City Council Hutton le Hole Ryedale District Council Hutton Hambleton District Council Bradford City Council Ingleton Craven District Council Bradford City Council Selby District Council Kendal South Lakeland District Council Kirby Overblow Harrogate Borough Council Kirbymoorside Ryedale District Council Kirk Hammerton Harrogate Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (K-S) Kirkby Lonsdale South Lakeland District Council Knaresborough Harrogate Borough Council Knottingley Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council Lancaster Lancaster City Council Leeds Leeds City Council Hambleton District Council Richmondshire District Council Long Marton Council Craven District Council Malton Ryedale District Council Manchester City Council Markington Harrogate Borough Council Middlesbrough Borough Council Lancaster City Council Newcastle-upon-Tyne Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council Richmondshire District Council Northallerton Hambleton District Council Norton Ryedale District Council Ryedale District Council Osgodby Selby District Council Osmotherley Hambleton District Council Harrogate Borough Council Pickering Ryedale District Council Pontefract Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council Preston Preston City Council Rainton Harrogate Borough Council Richmondshire District Council Redcar Borough Council Richmondshire District Council Selby District Council Richmond Richmondshire District Council Ryedale District Council Ripon Harrogate Borough Council Ryedale Ryedale District Council Scalby Scarborough Borough Council Scarborough Scarborough Borough Council District Council Scotton Richmondshire District Council Hambleton District Council Selby Selby District Council Settle Craven District Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (S-Z) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Sherburn Ryedale District Council Sherburn in Selby District Council Skipton Craven District Council Slingsby Ryedale District Council Scarborough Borough Council Ryedale District Council Stockton-on-Tees Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Hambleton District Council Sutton in Craven Craven District Council Swanby Hambleton District Council Tadcastle Selby District Council Thirsk Hambleton District Council Craven District Council Tockwith Harrogate Borough Council Wetherby Leeds City Council Scarborough Borough Council Worsall Hambleton District Council Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council York City of York Council Source: MORI Appendix 5: Qualitative Topic Guide

Communities and local government Topic Guide for COI/BCFE discussion groups in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber regions

Final version

For the moderator: background and overall objective of discussion groups

The Government has announced that referendums will take place in 2004 in these three regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Boundary Committee has been directed by the Government to undertake reviews of local government in each region and to put forward proposals for potential patterns of unitary local government. As part of the referendum, voters will be given the opportunity to select their preferred unitary pattern at the same time as voting on an elected regional assembly. The preferred unitary pattern would replace the current two tiers of county and district councils in the event of an elected regional assembly being introduced.

To help it formulate its initial proposals for consultation, the Boundary Committee has (through the COI) asked us to undertake surveys in each region and to hold a discussion group in each of the affected district council areas.

The objective of the discussion groups is to assess residents’ attitudes towards their local areas, their sense of community identities and interests, and issues which may impact on, and help to explain, their attitudes to local authority boundaries.

Elements of discussion needed to achieve objective

1. To identify overall attitudes to their area, what is good and bad, what areas people identify with. 2. What people consider to be important factors in deciding local government boundaries, and why. 3. Awareness of current local authorities, who does what, and their boundaries. 4. How people identify with existing local communities and boundaries, and why. 5. Preferences for local authority boundaries.

Note. We should not volunteer the name of the client. But, if pressed, we may say that say we are undertaking this research for an independent organisation. If asked, we can explain we have not been commissioned by local councils for this work. Maps

The Boundary Committee has prepared a number of maps to assist the discussion:

• For placing on the wall before groups starts, Map 1a is an A0-sized county (+ surrounding area) map with main geographical features, county boundaries, but no district boundaries.

• Map 1b is the same map except that it also shows district council boundaries. This should be placed underneath Map 1a so that it can be used in the latter part of the discussion. These maps need to be looked after because they will be used in all the groups.

• Map 2 is an A2-sized county (+surrounding area) map with geographical features but no boundaries. You have been given seven copies. As the topic guide explains, you will give a map each to three ‘mini’ groups of participants so that they can draw on perceptual boundaries of communities, and later further copies to the three mini-groups to draw ‘new authority’ boundaries. The remaining map is for the moderator’s use.

• A4 district map will allow you to familiarise yourself with local place names/area before you do the group.

• You have also been provided with a road atlas in case you need it Topic guide

Our target is to cover all the ground in this topic guide. Sometimes, however, we will need to prioritise. Issues which are essential to cover are therefore italicised.

Note that participants will be asked to compete a short questionnaire before and after their group.

Section Objective Time

1. Introduction

Outline purpose of discussion – looking at what you Establish group, get 10 mins think about your local area and how public services overall perspective of should be provided and what you would like to see participants happen. Also acts as a warm- up Confidentiality Permission to tape record Set tape recorder

Ask group to introduce themselves, in pairs (log for Keep this very brief, future analysis – key points will also be available from as pick up some info the pre-group questionnaire). in pre/post questionnaires Personal history: -name, age, work, family. -how long have you lived in the area -where else have you lived -where is your family from -why did you move to this area -strength of continuing ties with previous areas -comparison of feeling towards current and previous areas.

Tell us about one good thing and one bad thing about living in the area (this will also be asked in the pre-group questionnaire).

MENTION OPPORTUNITY AT END TO COMPLETE SHORT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS. 2. Mind map: How to define ‘community’

START BY ASKING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE Word association 30 mins THINK OF WHEN THEY THINK OF THEIR provides way in to ‘COMMUNITY’. MODERATOR TO DRAFT topic + way to glean ‘MIND MAP’ ON FLIPCHART. NOTE ALL audience priorities/ ASSOCIATIONS BUT ALSO NOTE FIRST language + messages ASSOCIATIONS (TOP OF MIND). By exploring different responses, understand PROBE: what other types of community can you the range of factors at think of? work

Now looking at these ideas, which 3-4 aspects do you believe are most important for defining the community.

NOW ASK PARTICIPANTS TO THINK IN GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS. What areas do you identify with? What are their boundaries and how far do they extend? PARTICIPANTS TO REFER TO MAP 1a IF NEEDED [Use map 1a] SPLIT INTO 2 or 3 MINI-GROUPS AND ASK PARTICIPANTS TO DRAW AREAS ON MAP 2 (USE RED PENS) OUTLINING THE Gets participants thinking in terms of COMMUNITIES OR AREAS THEY FEEL THEY how different factors BELONG TO OR IDENTIFY WITH. differ spacially or MODERATOR TO SPLIT GROUPS BY AGE, SEG, coincide? OR AREA [AS APPROPRIATE] – LOG [Use map 2 – use red DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MINI-GROUPS. pens]

PROBE: GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE, WORK, FACILITIES/AMENITIES (INCLUDING SHOPPING, LEISURE, EDUCATION ETC.)

THEN AS A WHOLE GROUP, BY USING THE MAPS AS A REFERENCE, PROBE WHY PARTICIPANTS DRAW BOUNDARIES WHERE THEY DO. ALLOW EACH GROUP TO OUTLINE THEIR PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS LIKELY TO DRAW OUT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS. IF NOT, PROBE:

How far does public transport/road links affect where you go?

How does this affect your identification with different areas? What other factors affect whether/how much you identify with different areas? Why? By how much?

PROBE: COMMUNITY CHARACTER, LOCAL ACTIVITY/MEMBERSHIP OF ORGANISATIONS, GEOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, LOCAL ACCENT, LOCAL HISTORY, TRADITIONAL AFFILIATIONS, POSTAL ADDRESSES. And which other areas do you identify with? PROBE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE DISTRICT/COUNTY. SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES TO OWN AREAS.

In the light of this further discussion, you may now want to amend the boundaries of the areas you identify with PARTICIPANTS TO DRAW BOUNDARIES ON SAME COPY OF MAP 2 (USE BLUE PEN) MODERATOR TO ENSURE PARTICIPANTS THINKING IN GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS HERE. Use map 2 again – but use blue pen this And are there any areas that you don’t identify with? time] Some resps may not change their original [HALF WAY POINT – MOVE ON IF boundary – not a NEEDED] problem Ask if this hasn’t come up already.

3. Exploring service delivery

GIVE RESPONDENTS A COPY OF LIST OF Assess understanding 10 mins PUBLIC SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED and awareness of public services and AND DISCUSS WITH PARTICIPANTS. local governance. Ask if there were any surprises in terms of which type of council provides which service.

Which services are provided well? Introduction of And which services are not provided so well? factors which may [Be brief – this is here to maintain participants’ impact later on perceptions of engagement.] boundaries. ASK FOR BOTH DISTRICT COUNCIL AND COUNTY COUNCIL. Do you know where the Councils are based? PROBE FOR DC & CC Have you visited or contacted them recently? 4. Preferences for local government boundaries

Explain that system may change. REFER TO Refer to moderator 35 mins MODERATOR NOTES FOR EXACT WORDING notes showcard section a) which explains review PROMPT FOR SIZE OF AUTHORITY How big do you think the new authority should be? Note that there is no set size for new authority type – they NEXT SECTION COVERS ATTITUDES should tell you what TOWARDS TWO TIER/UNITARY SYSTEM: they feel is sensible NOTE: YOU MUST USE EXACT WORDING HERE TO AVOID BIAS/LEADING. Note: moderator can be flexible here on WRITE UP ON FLIPCHART how much we cover What are the pros and cons of a two tier system (i.e. this section on two types of council – District and County) that exist one/two councils at the moment? Note: this is to get resps thinking about WRITE UP ON SAME FLIPCHART existing system vs new Can you tell me the pros and cons of having just one system, but we don’t council providing all services for your area? need to dwell on pros Probe on impact of this on quality, cost, effectiveness and cons etc.

THEN EXPLORE IMPACT ON LIVES OF HAVING A UNITARY COUNCIL How do you think having one council would impact the lives of people living around here? What do you think the main changes would be?

Do local authority boundaries are important ? Why? What is more important; quality of services, or who provides them?

What impact do boundaries have on a council’s functions? Probe for having the most appropriate boundaries for services, efficiency, effectiveness, convenience, reflecting communities etc.

What are the kind of issues which should inform local authority boundaries? PROBE: ECONOMIES OF SCALE, EASE OF CONTACT, ACCOUNTABILITY, HISTORICAL OR TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES, COST OF SERVICES, LEVEL OF INFORMATION, ACCESS TO COUNCILLORS, QUALITY OF SERVICES, RESPONDING TO PEOPLE’S WISHES, SENSE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY, SIZE OF POPULATION, RURAL/URBAN FACTORS, OTHER FACTORS (TRADITION, CHANGE ETC). [NOTE: IT IS IMPORTANT TO TEASE OUT THESE FACTORS] SPLIT INTO 2 OR 3 SUB-GROUPS: Ask respondents to draw on new copy of map 2 where they think a new authority’s boundaries should be [use red pens]. Note issue new copy [Note: if respondents stuck, they should choose an area at least of map 2 to each mini the size of their current district but are free to choose a bigger group [use red pens] area or to completely change current district boundaries].

ASK GROUPS TO PRESENT BACK THEIR MAPS TO THE GROUP AS A WHOLE AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS BEHIND THEIR CHOICES.

ALSO PROBE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MINI-GROUPS, E.G. GENDER? AGE? WHERE PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVE? FOLLOWING CURRENT BOUNDARIES?

NOW LOOK AT MAP1b (WITH DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ON) [Take down map 1a to How do district boundaries relate to the local community show map use 1b which was boundaries drawn earlier? underneath] And how do they relate to the boundaries just drawn?

Do the current boundaries make sense? PROBE FOR CURRENT BOUNDARIES WHICH RESPONDENTS FEEL ARE INAPPROPRIATE/DON’T MAKE SENSE How would you feel about one authority covering the whole County area?

ATTACHMENT

How would you feel if the county council no longer existed? Why? PROBE: AFFINITY TO DIFFERENT AREAS, TRADITION, CIVIC PRIDE ETC

DISCUSS ATTACHMENT TO NAME VS SERVICE PROVISION NOTE: important to emphasise difference in County Council no longer existing vs the historic county Refer to moderator notes section b) for (which would still exist) – e.g. the county area/name info would still exist for civic reasons, i.e. county cricket would still exist

Explore County name – how would they feel if still there but with north/south/east/west X County (choose as appropriate)? What would they feel comfortable with their county area being called? Why? What would they not want it to be called? Why? DRAW MAP ON FLIPCHART OF COUNTY AND SURROUNDING .

Explore what it means to be from that particular county and how the county identity varies to Get respondents to neighbouring counties. help you draw ‘map’ by shouting out the How would you feel if the district council no longer adjacent county names existed? Why? – see example at end PROBE: AFFINITY TO DIFFERENT AREAS, of topic guide TRADITION, CIVIC PRIDE ETC PLUS ATTACHMENT TO NAME VS SERVICE PROVISION

IF APPROPRIATE: REFER TO MAP 1b SHOWING DISTRICT AND SURROUNDING DISTRICTS What does it mean to be from your District and how does that very when compared to neighbouring Districts? Thinking about adjacent districts, where are the community links strongest or weakest with this district?

5. Final messages

Thinking about what we have been discussing – people’s sense of Identification of key 5 mins community and how this relates to local authority boundaries: arguments - what are most/least relevant arguments which should be made for where local authority boundaries should be? - What is the one key message you would want us to take away from this group?

DISTRIBUTE POST-GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE COVERING ATTITUDES AND AWARENESS FOLLOWING SESSION. ALSO PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS. Example of County and surrounding Counties ‘map’ to draw at section 4:

Get participants to shout out which counties surround the county you are working in. Don’t worry if drawing is not accurate in terms of size/shape etc! Is just to gauge awareness and lead onto county identity probes and comparison with surrounding counties.

Northumb- erland

Cumbria Durham

North Yorkshire Public services prompt (copy in pack to give to each participant)

County councils: District councils: • Education • Housing • Social Services • Council tax • Libraries • Electoral registration • Fire • Allotments • Registration (births, marriages and • Cemeteries and crematoria deaths) • Smallholdings • Planning (strategic, minerals and • Planning (local plans, planning waste planning, highway dev. applications) control, historic buildings etc) • Transport (public transport, highways, traffic management, • Transport (offstreet parking, street transport planning etc) lighting etc) • Environmental services (rubbish disposal) • Environment services (rubbish collection, building regulations, • Recreation and art street cleaning etc) • Economic development (tourism • Recreation and art promotion) • Economic development (tourism • Consumer protection (trading promotion) standards, public analysis, • Consumer protection consumer advice) (environmental health) Appendix 6: Marked-up Questionnaire