Local Government Review in the Crewe & Nantwich Borough

Home , Cholmondeston, Crewe and Nantwich, Minshull Vernon, Nantwich, Peckforton

Local Government Review in the Crewe & Nantwich 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 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 Crewe & Nantwich Borough Crewe area Nantwich area

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 Crewe & Nantwich 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 Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area, Cheshire, and covers both the main research and the additional interviews. Further details of the approach taken in Crewe & Nantwich 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:

• ‘Crewe & Nantwich’ refers to the Borough Council area of that name; the eastern part of the area is described as the ‘Crewe area’ and the western part as the ‘Nantwich area’.

• 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’ 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 BCFE map to be inserted The Cheshire County Council Area The Cheshire

7 This Report

This report presents MORI’s findings in the Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area, Cheshire (in the North West region). The Crewe & Nantwich 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, 304 interviews took place across the borough. Second, MORI undertook additional interviews in order to ensure that around 300 interviews took place in each side of the boundary which would split the borough under one of the Committee’s preliminary proposals (Option B). We have called these areas the ‘Crewe area’ and the ‘Nantwich area’. The Crewe area comprises the Borough Council wards of Alexandra, Coppenhall, Delamere, Englesea, Grosvenor, Haslington, Maw Green, Shavington, St. Barnabas, St John’s, St. Mary’s, Valley, Waldron, Wells Green, Willaston and Wisaston Green, and the parishes of Minshull Vernon and Leighton. The Nantwich area comprises the Borough Council wards of Acton, Audlem, Barony Weaver, Birchin, Bunbury, Leighton, Peckforton, Wellington and Wybunbury, and the parishes of Aston Juxta, Church Minshull, Cholmondeston, Poole and Worleston.

As part of the main survey, MORI undertook 187 interviews in the Crewe area and 106 interviews in the Nantwich area. In a separate additional survey, MORI interviewed a further 107 and 224 residents respectively. In total, therefore, MORI interviewed 294 residents in the Crewe area and 330 residents in the Nantwich area. A further 11 interviews were included in MORI’s borough-wide data, making the total number shown in the appended topline 304.

In this report, we have often reported separately on the data from Crewe & Nantwich as a whole, the Crewe area, and the Nantwich area. When interpreting the data, it is important to bear in mind that the additional interviews were organised as a separate survey from the main research, that the two sub-district areas may have different demographic profiles, and that sampling tolerances apply to both surveys (as set out in the Methodology appended to this report).

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 area 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 the Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area, the Crewe area and the Nantwich area, are set out in the appendices to this report.

The methodology in Appendix 2 includes an explanation of statistical reliability. It is unlikely that aggregated data from the Crewe area and the Nantwich area will always precisely reflect that found in the borough as a whole. This is because of sampling tolerances explained in the Methodology. This does not detract from the broad findings which emerge from this research.

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.

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 Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive John Kennedy, 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

Executive Summary Considering Boundary Changes • As in Cheshire generally, the most important issues which Crewe & Nantwich 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 both the Crewe and the Nantwich areas. 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 with the eastern parts of Crewe & Nantwich (i.e. the ‘Crewe area’) and Vale Royal districts; and - Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester districts, combined with the western parts of Crewe & Nantwich (i.e. the ‘Nantwich area’) and Vale Royal districts.

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

• A very similar pattern is found across Crewe & Nantwich borough as a whole. Option C is preferred by the same proportion of residents as across the county. Around one in five of the borough’s residents prefer Option A, while one in ten opt for Option B as their preferred choice. One in six of the borough’s residents state an unprompted preference for no change.

• Option C is also clearly the most preferred option in both the Crewe and the Nantwich areas – almost half of residents in both these areas select Option C as their preferred choice. Strength of feeling for their preference for Option C is similarly strong in both areas (87% and 92% respectively).

11 • At the county level, the main reason for preferring Option C is the wish for a council to cover a small area (58%). Other prominent reasons are that it would reflect the views of local people (43%) and that it would reflect local identity (37%). A very similar picture is recorded across the Crewe & Nantwich borough as a whole, and in both the Crewe and Nantwich areas.

• Option A is the second preferred choice in both the Crewe area and the Nantwich area (23% and 17% respectively). Residents’ main reason for preferring Option A across the county is the view that it would be more efficient or provide better value for money (nominated by almost a half of residents). Again similar findings are found across the borough as a whole, and in both the Crewe and the Nantwich areas. Least Preferred Option • Option A is the least preferred option in the county as a whole (by 48%) and in each of the six districts, including Crewe & Nantwich. It is also the least preferred option in both the Crewe and the Nantwich areas. Residents’ main reason for least preferring Option A is that they do not want their council to cover a large area. This is the main reason of residents across Cheshire and also in Crewe & Nantwich borough, and in the Crewe and Nantwich areas. Knowledge of Local Government • Most Crewe & Nantwich residents do not claim to know much about local government. In Crewe & Nantwich as a whole, under half (47%) claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide – the same proportion as across the county as a whole. Knowledge of the Review • Around one in five residents in Crewe & Nantwich claim to know much (i.e. a great deal or fair amount) about the Committee’s review of local government (19%) – a similar proportion as in the county generally (17%). In the 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 (33%) and leaflets, whether produced by local authorities, the Committee or others (31%). Expressing a View • Most residents are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. In the county generally, and in Crewe & Nantwich borough, fewer than one in twelve say they do not know what is their most preferred option. In the Nantwich area around one in nine residents do not know what their most preferred option is, while in the Crewe area, one in ten residents are unsure.

12 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 Crewe & Nantwich, only 7% claim to know a great deal about local government, while fewer than half claim to know a great deal or fair amount (47%). Around half say they know not very much or nothing at all (51%). This in broadly in line with findings in Cheshire as a whole.

• Knowledge about local government is a little lower in Crewe (where 46% claim to know a great deal or fair amount) than in Nantwich (50%).

• There are wide variations by demographic groups. Generally speaking, the higher the social grade, and the older the resident, the greater is likely to be their knowledge about local councils. Those who are involved in the community are also likely to know more about local councils. Across Crewe & Nantwich as a whole, 59% of these who feel involved with their community (a great deal or a fair amount) claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils, compared with 41% of those who do not feel so involved.

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

Crewe & Nantwich borough Crewe area Nantwich area

2% 7% 1% 10%2% 7% 10% 6% 6%

40% 43% 44% 41% 40% 41%

13 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 Crewe & Nantwich, residents are generally highly satisfied with their local area as a place to live. More than four in five are satisfied (86%) compared with 8% who are dissatisfied. Satisfaction is similar in the borough to the other Cheshire districts (the average for the county is 89%).

• Satisfaction is higher in Nantwich (95% being fairly or very satisfied), than in Crewe (80%). A much higher proportion of Nantwich residents are very satisfied (62% compared with 43% Crewe residents).

• Residents’ attitudes 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) - 58% compared with 40%; and 76% of those in social grades AB are very satisfied compared with 37% of social grades DE.

• Those who have a strong sense of belonging to their borough council area or the county area of Cheshire, and those who are satisfied with the services local councils provide, 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 Don't know Crewe & Nantwich borough Crewe area Nantwich area

3% *% *% *% 5% 5% 2%2% 6% 7% 8% 43% 33% 54% 32% 62%

37%

14 Involvement in the Community

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

• Across the Crewe & Nantwich borough, only around a third of residents feel involved a great deal or fair amount in their local community (34%), compared to two thirds who feel not very involved or not at all involved (66%). Two in five residents do not feel at all involved (38%).

• Again, there is a correlation with age and social class. Older people and AB residents feel more involved in the local community. Similarly, those satisfied with their borough and county council services, and those knowledgeable about local government, feel a greater sense of involvement. There is also a relationship with the type of area in which Crewe & Nantwich residents live: 65% of those in a rural area feel involved with their community compared with 21% of those living in an urban area.

• There are also differences within the borough – 44% of residents in the Nantwich area feel involved (a great deal or fair amount), compared with 25% in the Crewe area. There is a more marked distinction between those who feel ‘not at all involved’ – 39% in Crewe compared with just 12% in Nantwich.

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 Nantwich area Crewe area Crewe & Nantwich borough *% 1% *% 11% 7% 12% 8%

18% 38% 39% 23% 36%

43%

34% 28%

15 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.

• Such a hierarchy is not so evident in Cheshire, however: in the county as a whole, 59% of residents feel they belong very or fairly strongly to their district council area, and 57% feel they belong very or fairly to their county council area.

• Residents’ sense of belonging both to county council and district council areas is similar in Crewe & Nantwich as in all the other districts in the county – and there is little distinction between their sense of belonging (very or fairly strongly ) to the borough council area and county council area (56% and 52% respectively).

• 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 to 57% to the county council area). This hierarchy is maintained for Crewe & Nantwich.

Sense of Belonging – Crewe & Nantwich 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 Crewe & Nantwich Cheshire CC area County of Cheshire BC area

9% 6% 3% 16% 11% 15% 8% 10% 15% 44%

27% 28% 37% 40% 32%

Base: Crewe & Nantwich: 304 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

16 Sense of Belonging – Crewe area

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

Crewe & Nantwich Cheshire CC area County of Cheshire BC area

12% 6% 16% 14% 14% 7%

10% 36% 10% 14%

23% 40% 39% 22%

38%

Base: Crewe area: 294 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

Sense of Belonging – Nantwich area

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 Crewe & Nantwich Cheshire CC area County of Cheshire BC area

4% 10% 5% 11% 4%3% 6% 8%

19% 35%

33% 36% 40% 46%

38%

Base: Nantwich area: 330 residents, 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 in Crewe & Nantwich as in Cheshire generally (19%) claims that they knew much (a great deal or fair amount) about the review before MORI’s interview. There is little difference in knowledge between the Crewe and the Nantwich areas.

• There are some significant variations between demographic groups, however. Across the county, those in the higher social grades are much more likely to know about the review: 25% 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 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 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 Crewe & Nantwich.

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 Crewe & Nantwich Crewe area Nantwich area borough 2% 3% 2%3% 1%3% 16% 12% 16%

37% 43% 44% 27% 29% 28%

14% 12% 8%

Base: Crewe & Nantwich: 304 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004 Base: Crewe area: 294 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: Nantwich area: 330 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 19 Over half of residents across the county have heard of the review (55%), even if they know nothing about it. A higher proportion has heard of the review in Crewe & Nantwich (62%), but there is no significant disparity within the borough. 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 Crewe & Nantwich as a whole also applies to the Crewe area and the Nantwich areas.

Sources of information – Overview (Crewe & Nantwich borough)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 45%

TV\Radio\Posters 33%

Leaflets 31%

Councils 8%

Websites 2%

Other sources 18%

Base: 197 Crewe & Nantwich residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

20 Sources of information – Overview (Crewe area)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 47%

TV\Radio\Posters 35%

Leaflets 30%

Councils 8%

Websites 2%

Other sources 17%

Base: 166 Crewe area residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Sources of information – Overview (Nantwich area)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 52%

TV\Radio\Posters 28%

Leaflets 17%

Councils 4%

Websites 0%

Other sources 14%

Base: 193 Nantwich area residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

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 in Cheshire for the Committee’s Option C. This is preferred by more than two in five residents (45%). Option A is the next most preferred (25%), while Option B is preferred by 11%. One in nine state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change (11%). Less than 1% of residents would prefer some other option.

• The same proportion of residents across Crewe & Nantwich borough prefer Option C (45%). Those who prefer this option outnumber those who prefer the next most popular Option (Option A) by a ratio of around 2:1 (21%). One in ten residents prefer Option B (10%).

• More borough than county residents state an unprompted preference for no change (17% and 11% respectively).

• This general picture for Crewe & Nantwich also emerges from the Crewe and the Nantwich areas.

23 • Option A is the least preferred option in the county as a whole (nominated by 48% of residents). A similar proportion of Crewe & Nantwich residents least prefer Option A (44%).

• 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 (7% in Crewe & Nantwich).

• Generally, rather more residents in the borough than across the county generally do not know their least preferred option: 18% in Cheshire as a whole and 24% in Crewe & Nantwich.

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%

Don't know 8% 18%

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

24 Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Crewe & Nantwich borough

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 21% 44%

Option B 10% 19%

Option C 45% 13%

Other Option 0%

No change 17%

Don't know 7% 24%

Base: Crewe & Nantwich: 304 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Crewe

Option A 23% 49%

Option B 11% 14%

Option C 47% 19%

Other Option *%

No change 9%

Don't know 10% 19%

Base: Crewe area: 294 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

25 Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Nantwich area

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 17% 45%

Option B 10% 20%

Option C 46% 12%

Other Option *%

No change 16%

Don't know 11% 24%

Base: Nantwich area: 330 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

26 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues Four issues in particular are identified by residents (from a prompted list) as being most important to take into account when deciding how to change the boundaries of council areas in the county: the quality of services, accountability, responding to local people’s wishes, and cost of services. These four factors apply in each area – Crewe & Nantwich, the Crewe area, and the Nantwich area. No other factor is mentioned by more than 5% of residents in any of the 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+.

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

Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Crewe & Nantwich 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 28%

Cost of services 18%

Being accountable 17% to local people

Responding to local 17% people's wishes

Base: Crewe & Nantwich: 304 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 27 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Crewe area)

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 30%

Responding to local 19% people's wishes

Being accountable 18% to local people

Cost of services 15%

Base: Crewe area: 294 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Nantwich area)

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 27%

Being accountable 20% to local people

Responding to local 18% people's wishes

Cost of services 11%

Base: Nantwich area: 330 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

28 The Following Sections The following three sections look at the data for each of the three 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 Crewe & Nantwich and the Crewe and the Nantwich areas 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.

Option A

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

31 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 the strength of council (29%) and accountability (24%). On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on its geographical size as a disadvantage (mentioned by almost two-thirds, 63%). Other key factors are the view that it would not reflect local views (39%) or community identity (35%), and would not improve council services (29%). A broadly similar view is applies to Crewe & Nantwich.

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)

More efficient / better 46% value for money

Would create a 29% strong council

Council would be 24% more accountable

Best of the available 23% options

Would improve 21% council services

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

32 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 Crewe & Nantwich – 82% feel very or fairly strongly about their preference. Broadly similar strength of feeling is found in the Crewe and the Nantwich areas.

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 to serve: (1) Congleton, Macclesfield, part of Crewe & Nantwich and part of Vale Royal districts combined; and (2) Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester City, part of Crewe & Nantwich and part of Vale Royal districts combined.

35 In the county as a whole, residents’ reasons for preferring Option B focus primarily on people’s ‘instinct’ and that ‘it is the best’ (mentioned by 31%); followed by that the council would be more efficient and would be more accountable; and it would also reflect local people’s views and improve council services. Unlike Option A, there is no single reason that emerges clearly ahead of others. Those who least prefer this option say that they would not like the council to cover a large area (24%), is the worst of the available options (23%) or is just their ‘instinct’ (21%). A further one in five residents say that it would not reflect local identity (20%).

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 m oney

The council would be more accountable 25%

It would reflect local people's views 23%

It would improve council services 22%

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

Reasons for Option B being Least Preferred Option (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 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

36 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 Crewe & Nantwich borough is less than that of those in the county as a whole (71%).

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.

39 Cheshire residents’ reasons for preferring 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%), local identity (37%), and that the council would be more accountable (31%). On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the fact that the council would be less efficient (41%). Other key factors are the view that it would not improve council services (28%), and that it instinctively would be the worst option (24%).

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's the worst of available options 18%

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

40 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). Views in Crewe & Nantwich are held similarly strongly (a total of 82% feeling 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 country-wide preference of 45%, this option is least preferred by those over 55 (39%) and DE residents (37%).

4. Preferred New Council Name The Committee also wished to consult on possible names for any new unitary councils and respondents who prefer Option B and those who prefer Option C were asked about a number of names in relation to their preferred option. These respondents were also given the opportunity to nominate an alternative 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, of those who prefer Option B across the county, the most popular choices of name for the council are East Cheshire (17%), county of West Cheshire (15%), and county of East Cheshire (12%). Around one in six residents who prefer Option B do not know what their preferred council name would be.

Of county residents who prefer Option C, the most popular choice of name for the new council area is Mid-Cheshire County (11%), East Cheshire County (11%), and Cheshire Central (10%),

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 Crewe & Nantwich) 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 Crewe & Nantwich is of residents using many facilities which are inside the borough. There is no one local authority area outside the borough which acts as a draw for Crewe & Nantwich residents. Chester attracts one in five borough residents for clothes and household goods shopping and Stoke-on-Trent attracts one in eight such shoppers from the Crewe area. But the overall picture is of a fairly self-contained borough area.

Main Food Shopping Nine in ten Crewe & Nantwich residents (90%) undertake their main food shopping inside the borough. The most common destination is the town of Crewe itself (64%), followed by Nantwich (26%). Overall, almost three quarters of C2DE residents (73%) go to the town of Crewe for their main food shopping, compared with around half of ABC1s (54%). In contrast, visitors to Nantwich are more likely to be social grades ABC1 (37%) than C2DE (15%). Reflecting the geography of the borough, residents in urban areas are more likely to go to Crewe for their food shopping than those in rural areas (85% and 13% respectively). Rural residents, on the other hand are more likely to go to the town of Nantwich than urban residents (62% and 11% respectively).

45 Clothes and Household Goods Shopping Around half of residents generally stay within the borough for clothes and household goods shopping (53%). Crewe is the most frequently visited destination for this kind of trip, with around two-fifths of the borough’s residents (43%) visiting the city. Chester is the other major destination (19%), while only one in ten residents shop for clothes/household goods mainly in Nantwich (10%).

In the Nantwich area, the most popular destinations for this kind of shopping are Crewe (33%), Chester (21%) and Nantwich (20%). In the Crewe area, the city of Crewe is by far the most popular destination (54%). Chester is the next most popular destination (13%), while just 6% of Crewe residents usually go to Nantwich for clothes/household goods shopping.

Schools A third of our sample in Crewe & Nantwich borough (33%) have school-aged children (aged 5-16) living in their household. Over four fifths of parents (82%) send their children to school within the borough. The most common location is Crewe itself (54%) but, as would be expected, there is a spread around the area. A fifth travel to school in Nantwich (19%).

In the Crewe area, the majority of children go to school in Crewe (78%) and few go to Nantwich (5%). In Nantwich, two thirds of children attend a Nantwich school (66%), while just 11% travel to Crewe.

Places of Work Just over half of residents in our sample in the borough work full- or part-time (56%). Of those in work, seven in ten do so within the borough (69%). Outside the borough, no single area is prominent as a work place.

In the Crewe area, a similar proportion works in the borough (63%), while just 6% of these residents work in Nantwich. In the Nantwich area, just over a third of these residents work in Nantwich (37%), while a further one in four (26%) travel to Crewe for work.

A similar picture in all areas emerges for other adults in the household who work.

Leisure and Sporting Activities Two thirds of Crewe & Nantwich residents stay in borough for leisure and sporting activities (67%). The town of Crewe is the most frequent destination (46%). Nantwich is a major attraction for one in five of the borough’s residents (20%).

In the Crewe area, three in five residents go to Crewe for their sporting and leisure activities, while just 9% mainly travel to Nantwich. In the Nantwich area, half of these residents (50%) usually stay in Nantwich for sporting/leisure activities, while a further one in four (26%) go to Crewe.

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.

46 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 of work hold goods (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) %%%%%% 1. Crewe & Nantwich residents Base: Crewe & Nantwich residents (304) (304) (84) (144) (154) (304) Crewe & Nantwich BC area 90 53 82 69 66 67

Other Cheshire districts Congleton Borough Council area * 2 5 4 5 9 Chester City Council area 1 19 2 3 1 4 Vale Royal Borough Council 1 0 7 5 7 3 area

Other Authorities North Shropshire DC area 4 2 2 1 4 3 Liverpool City Council area 0 3 0 1 1 * Manchester City Council area 0 5 0 2 3 4 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 0 0 0 1 0 3 Area

2. Crewe area residents Base: Crewe area residents (294) (294) (83) (135) (142) (294) Crewe & Nantwich BC area 95 60 90 73 76 67

Other Cheshire districts Congleton Borough Council area 2 3 9 6 7 9 Chester City Council area 0 13 0 4 1 1 Vale Royal Borough Council area 0 * 0 2 5 3

Other Authorities Manchester City Council area 0 6 0 2 2 3 Stoke-on-Trent City Council area 0 12 0 1 1 3

3. Nantwich area residents Base: Nantwich area residents (330) (330) (90) (157) (178) (330) Crewe & Nantwich BC area 89 54 81 65 64 64

Other Cheshire districts Congleton Borough Council area * 1 6 6 9 8 Chester City Council area 1 21 2 1 4 4 Vale Royal Borough Council area 2 0 7 4 7 2

Other Authorities Newcastle-under-Lyme BC area 0 * 2 2 1 3 North Shropshire DC area 7 3 3 3 3 7 Manchester City Council area 0 5 1 4 3 3 Stoke-on-Trent City Council area 0 7 0 * 0 6

(1) Asked only of those with school aged children (2) Asked only of those who work (3) Asked only of these with other members of household who work

47 Affective Communities

In the borough as a whole, around half of all residents (52%) identify most with the town of Crewe, with three in ten most associating with Nantwich (30%). In the Crewe area itself, three in four residents identify with Crewe (74%), while just 11% identify with Nantwich. In the Nantwich area, three in four residents most associate with Nantwich (76%), while just one in ten associate with Crewe (10%). Few most associate with a town outside the borough.

Association with Town – Crewe & Nantwich Borough

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

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area

Crewe 52%

Nantwich 30%

Shavington 3%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area

Whitchurch 3%

Base: 304 Crewe & Nantwich residents 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

48 Association with Town – Crewe area

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

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area

Crewe 74%

Nantwich 11%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area

Sandbach 5%

Base: 294 Crewe area residents 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2003

Association with Town – Nantwich area

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

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area

Nantwich 76%

Crewe 10%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council area

Whitchurch 4%

Base: 330 Nantwich area residents 18+, 1 December – 23 February 2004

It is clear that the majority of Crewe & Nantwich residents associate themselves inside the borough.

Appendices

1. Option Showcards

2. Research Methodology

3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area

4. Marked-up Questionnaires

Crewe & Nantwich Borough

Crewe area

Nantwich area

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. 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 ceremonial 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.

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. 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 quantitative face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. In addition, in the seven districts - including Crewe & Nantwich - 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 Crewe & Nantwich, Cheshire. As part of the main research, 304 interviews took place across the borough. MORI undertook additional interviews in the Crewe area and in the Nantwich area. The total interviewed in the Crewe area was 294 (including both the main research and the additional interviews). In the Nantwich area, a total of 330 interviews took place (again including those whose interview took place as part of the main research).

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 Crewe & Nantwich, 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 subgroups, 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. 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 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