Local Government Review in the Fylde Borough Council Area, Lancashire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Review in the Fylde Borough Council Area, Lancashire Additional Research Research Study Conducted by MORI for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Page Introduction 5 Executive Summary 11 1. Attitudes to Local Governance 13 2. Attitudes to Issues under Review 19 3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23 Option A 31 Option B 35 Option C 39 4. Preferred New Council Name 43 5. Community Identity 45 APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up Questionnaires Fylde borough West Fylde area East Fylde area 3 Introduction This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Fylde 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 Fylde Borough Council area, Lancashire, and covers both the main research and the additional interviews. Further details of the approach taken in Fylde are 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: • ‘Fylde’ 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 2, 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 Lancashire County Council Area 7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Fylde Borough Council area, Lancashire (in the North West region). The Fylde 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, 300 interviews took place across the borough. Second, MORI undertook additional interviews in order to ensure that approaching 300 interviews took place on each side of the boundary which would split the borough under two of the Committee’s preliminary proposals (Options B and C). We have called these areas East Fylde (see Footnote 1) and West Fylde (see Footnote 2). As part of our main research, MORI interviewed 67 residents in East Fylde and 205 residents in West Fylde. In our separate, additional research, we interviewed 209 residents and 86 residents respectively. The total interviewed in East Fylde was therefore 276 and in West Fylde 291. In this report we have often reported separately on the data from Fylde as a whole, East Fylde and West Fylde. When interpreting the data it is important to bear in mind three issues: • First, the additional interviews were organised as a separate survey from the main survey; • Second, the size of population (and therefore the number of interviews) in each sub-borough area will affect the impact which these views have on borough-wide data; and • Third, the two sub-borough areas do not have identical demographic profiles. Essentially, West Fylde data is likely to have a proportionally greater impact than East Fylde on Fylde-wide data, all other things being equal. Of course, in the real world, other things are not equal. The demographic profiles of the two sub-borough areas are different. It is also necessary to take into account statistical tolerances. These are typically around +5% for samples of 300 residents. 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 three marked-up questionnaires for Fylde Borough Council area (main research), the East Fylde area (main research plus additional interviews) and West Fylde area (main research plus additional interviews), 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. ¹ The Borough Council wards of Ashurst, Bickerstaffe, Birch Green, Digmoor, Moorside, Newburgh, Parbold, Skelmersdale North, Skelmersdale South, Tanhouse, Upholland, and Wrightington. ² The Borough Council wards of Aughton Park, Aughton & Downholland, Burscough East, Burscough West,Derby, Halsall, Hesketh-with-Becconsall, Knowsley,North Meols, Rufford, Scarisbrick, Scott, and Tarleton. 8 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 Renuka Engineer, Senior Research Executive Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive Paul Samuels, Research Executive Neil Wholey, 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 9 Executive Summary Considering Boundary Changes • As in Lancashire generally, the most important issues which Fylde residents think should be taken into account when deciding how council boundaries should be changed are the quality of services and responding to local people’s wishes. Other important factors are the need for accountability to local people and the cost of services. These four factors are also the most important in both East Fylde and West Fylde. 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 unitary council based upon the majority of the County Council area, with part of Rossendale combined with Rochdale and part of Wyre combined with Blackpool; - Option B: seven unitary councils (see p.23 for details); - Option C: eight unitary councils (see p.23 for details). Most Preferred Option • There are some key differences between Fylde residents’ views on alternative patterns of unitary local government and those held in most of the rest of county.