sign in sign up
<<
Home , Abbeytown, Arnside, Beetham, Easington District, Haverthwaite, Milnthorpe

Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003

Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for

October 2003

Contents

Introduction 1 Contact Details 3 Executive Summary 4 Local Communities 6 Defining Communities 6 Identifying Communities 6 Identity with the Local Community in the Copeland 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 Copeland Borough Council Area 18 Belonging to County Council Area 21 Knowledge and Attitudes towards Local Governance 24 Knowledge of Local Governance 24 Involvement with Local Governance 25 Administrative Boundary Issues 25 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 Copeland 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 Copeland 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 Yorkshire and the Humber 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 separately.

Copeland Borough Council (Cumbria CC)

Allerdale BC (Cumbria CC)

Copeland BC (Cumbria CC)

Data is available from two-tier authorities in these County Council areas: DC Durham Cumbria (Cumbria CC) North Yorkshire

Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council Barrow-in- BC CC = County Council (Cumbria CC)

Source: MORI

Methodology Both quantitative and qualitative research has been carried out in the Copeland Borough Council area, as in each two-tier district, borough or city council area in the North West 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 Copeland 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 1,893 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the area, with 302 interviews being conducted in the Copeland 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 feel the way they do.

In the Copeland 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. 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 Copeland Borough Council area. Individual summary reports for the findings within each of the two-tier authorities in the North West 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 Copeland 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 London SE1 1FY

Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800

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

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

• Residents in the Copeland 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 Copeland Borough Council area is largely rural, with activity concentrated on the town of . Two-thirds of residents most associate themselves with the town, while just under one in ten residents most associate with the smaller towns of Egremont and .

• "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. Whitehaven is a key destination for most activities, particularly with residents in lower social grades. The town of is also a focus point for clothes and household goods shopping, especially among residents living in rural areas.

• As has been found in other district and borough council areas nearby, (in the Carlisle City Council area) is a prominent destination - especially for clothes and household goods shopping. However, few residents actually feel that the city is the area or community they most belong to. This suggests that it may be a good place to visit, but does not form lasting community ties.

• "Affective Communities" are 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.

• Overall, almost nine in ten Copeland Borough Council residents feel they belong to a local area or community within this council area. This is high in comparison with other district or borough council areas in the Cumbria County Council area, and appears in large part to be due to the draw of Whitehaven in the Copeland Borough Council area.

4 Community Research in Copeland 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 Copeland 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 Copeland 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 Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Identity with the Local Community in the Copeland 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 the town as a whole or the nearest town. In the Copeland Borough Council area more than four residents in ten (41%) feel that they very strongly belong to their neighbourhood or village, with a similar proportion feeling they fairly strongly belong (42%). Across all the qualitative groups the discussions centred around local geographical areas. In the Copeland Borough discussion group respondents identified with their local community rather than any larger geographical area. This may, in part, be due to the fact that with the exception of Whitehaven, communities in Copeland Borough Council tend to be very small.

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) 46% 41% 42%

29%

19% 13% 6% 4% *% *% Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very Not at all No opinion strongly strongly Base: 302 Copeland Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

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

The table below shows the differences across the two-tier council areas in the Cumbria 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: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority

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

Allerdale BC 57 29 12 2 0 Barrow-in-Furness BC 58 32 8 1 1 Carlisle City Council 38 45 13 5 0 Copeland BC 41 42 13 4 * Eden DC 37 45 10 3 4 South Lakeland DC 43 42 12 2 *

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

Allerdale BC 48 34 15 3 0 Barrow-in-Furness BC 44 32 15 8 1 Carlisle City Council 43 42 12 4 0 Copeland BC 29 46 19 6 * Eden DC 25 50 17 5 3 South Lakeland DC 24 47 23 5 1

Source: MORI

8 Community Research in Copeland 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, and therefore form the basis of their effective communities.

Main food shopping: Almost nine in ten residents (88%) do their main food shopping inside the Copeland Borough Council area, the most popular destination being Whitehaven (79%), the principal town in the Copeland Borough Council area.

Clothes and household goods shopping: Half of Copeland Borough residents stay in the Borough Council area for clothes and household goods shopping (51%), particularly residents in the lower social grades, 55% of C2s1 and 65% of DEs2. Again, Whitehaven is the most popular destination with 49% of residents doing their clothes and household goods shopping there. Workington is the next most popular shopping destination in the Council area, with one sixth of residents doing their clothes and household goods shopping there (16%).

An equal number, however, (particularly those under the age of 35) travel outside the council area to Carlisle (in Carlisle City Council area) to buy clothes and household goods.

Leisure and Sporting Activities: The majority of Copeland Borough Council area residents stay inside the district for leisure and sporting activities (65%). Again, Whitehaven is the most frequently visited town for this pursuit (51%). The second most popular destination for leisure and sporting activities is Workington (11%).

Places of work: Just over half our sample in the Copeland Borough Council area are in full or part time work (56%). Of those in work, over eight in ten stay in the Copeland Borough Council area (82%). The most frequent are Whitehaven (31%) and Sellafield (16%); nuclear reprocessing being one of the primary industries in the area.

1 C2: skilled manual workers. 2 DE: semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, the unemployed and state pensioners.

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

A similar picture is seen when residents as a whole were asked where other adults in the household work. It should be noted that two fifths of households have no other adult in the household, or no other adult who is working (50%). Amongst those who work, the most frequent location is the Copeland Borough Council area (75%).

School: A quarter of our sample (27%) in the Copeland Borough Council area have school aged children (aged 5-16) living in their household. More than nine in ten (93%) send their children to school within the Copeland Borough Council area, the most common mentions being Whitehaven (49%), Cleator Moor (13%) and Egremont (10%) with a few percent attending schools at various smaller towns in the area. One in ten send their children into the neighbouring Allerdale Borough Council area (10%).

10 Community Research in Copeland 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: 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: Copeland Borough Council (302) (302) (302) (167) (150) (85) residents %%%%% % Inside Council Area Arlecdon 000105 Cleator Moor3141513 Distington 001213 Egremont 3 * 4 5 3 10 Frizington * 0 1 2 1 8 Hensingham000005 3 * 2 3 6 6 Seascale 0 * 21360 Sellafield 0 0 0 16 22 0 Whitehaven 79 49 51 31 29 49

Outside Council Area Barrow-in-Furness452310 Carlisle 0 16 1 1 1 0 Keswick 0*2013 Newcastle-upon-Tyne 0 4 * 0 0 0 The Lakes/Lake District003000 Workington516117145

None / nowhere 0 0 12 0 0 0 Don't know/not stated 1 2 4 3 2 0

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

11 Community Research in Copeland 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 Main Shop for Leisure & Main Other Child’s town or area in council area food clothes & sporting place of adults school (2) (where at least 3%) shopping house- activities work (1) place of hold work goods Base: Copeland Borough Council (302) (302) (302) (167) (150) (85) residents

Copeland BC 88 51 65 82 75 93

Other Cumbria county two- tier Authorities Allerdale BC 6 1714101810 Barrow-in-Furness BC452320 Carlisle City Council 0 16 1 1 1 0

Other Authorities Newcastle-upon-Tyne 04*000 City Council

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

12 Community Research in Copeland 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 communities3. In the Copeland Borough Council area, 4% of residents feel that they are involved a great deal in their local community, a quarter a fair amount (27%), a half not very much (53%) and 14% not at all.

Q19 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community? A great deal A fair Not very Not at all Don't know amount much Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority Allerdale BC 12 26 47 15 1 Barrow-in-Furness BC 73844101 Carlisle City Council 5265514* Copeland BC 42753142 Eden DC 941409 1 South Lakeland DC 73841131 Source: MORI

Feeling involved in the local community in general is naturally considerably higher for those who take part in local activities. A quarter of residents (26%) across the Copeland Borough Council area state that they are a member of an organised group (e.g. sports club or team, religious organisation, tenants' or residents' association, Parish Council), rising to nearly half (46%) of those who either feel involved a great deal or a fair amount in their local community.

Again there is a difference by social grade, with three in five ABs4 (61%) taking part in some kind of activity and 40% involved in an organised group - twice the level recorded among DEs (18%).

3 Young, K., Gosschalk, B. & Hatter, W. In Search of Community Identity - MORI analysis conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1995/96. 4 AB: professionals such as doctors, senior managers/executives, upper grades of services - i.e. those on the highest income.

13 Community Research in Copeland 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 (302) % 42 (23) (26) (10) 57 Age 18-24 (27) % 45 (19) (34) (4) 55 25-34 (52) % 36 (22) (19) (4) 62 35-54 (120) % 44 (26) (24) (11) 56 55-64 (41) % 54 (32) (34) (23) 46 65-74 (38) % 42 (24) (26) (11) 58 75+ (24) % 29 (4) (21) (8) 67 Social grouping AB (54) % 61 (28) (40) (34) 39 C1 (66) % 47 (26) (32) (9) 51 C2 (77) % 40 (21) (20) (2) 60 DE (105) % 31 (21) (18) (5) 68 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly strongly (250) % 46 (26) (27) (11) 54 Not very/not at all (51) % 25 (10) (21) (8) 75 strongly Involved in community Great deal/fair amount (94) % 61 (29) (46) (18) 39 Not very much/nothing (203) % 35 (21) (17) (7) 65 Length of residency Under 2 years (27) % 33 (18) (18) (11) 67 3-10 years (65) % 58 (31) (36) (20) 42 11 or more years (210) % 39 (22) (23) (7) 60

Source: MORI

14 Community Research in Copeland 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 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 for and supporting people can be considerable and was raised in the qualitative discussion groups. This helps develop an effective community into an affective one.

Two-thirds of Copeland Borough Council residents (66%) identify most with Whitehaven, with 7% identifying with both Cleator Moor and Egremont. Overall, almost nine in ten identify with towns inside Copeland Borough Council area (89%).

Association with Town Q3 Overall, which town do you currently most associate yourself with? UNPROMPTED Top seven mentions of towns inside Copeland Borough Council area Whitehaven 66% Cleator Moor 7% Egremont 7% Millorn 4% Frizington 3% St Bees 2% Distington *% Top two mentions of towns outside Copeland Borough Council area Workington 4% 2%

Base: 302 Copeland Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

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

A similar picture is seen when residents are asked what area or community they feel they most belong to. This question was asked after the bank of questions on effective communities, where people shopped etc. Again, nine in ten residents identify with an area within the Copeland Borough Council area (88%).

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 seven mentions of area or community inside Copeland Borough Council area Whitehaven 40% Cleator Moor 8% Egremont 6% Frizington 6% Millorn 5% Distington 4% Gosforth 2% Top two mentions of area or community outside Copeland Borough Council area Workington 2% Cockermouth 1%

Base: 302 Copeland 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 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 Copeland Borough Council area). As discussed, nine in ten residents (88%) identify with areas inside Copeland Borough Council area boundaries.

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

Copeland Borough Council - Quantitative Area Identity 88% of Copeland Borough Council residents identify Allerdale BC with local (Cumbria CC) area/community within the Council 1% area 3%

Copeland BC (Cumbria CC) Data is available from two-tier *% authorities in these County Council areas: Cheshire 1% South Lakeland DC Durham Cumbria (Cumbria CC) Lancashire Northumberland North Yorkshire

*% Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council CC = County Council Barrow-in-Furness BC 0% (Cumbria CC) Base: c.300 Council Residents in each Borough or District Council area 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

There is a relationship between residents in the Copeland Borough Council area and the Allerdale Borough Council area which is apparent in both the quantitative and the qualitative research.

Copeland Borough Council - Qualitative Area Identity

Allerdale BC (Cumbria CC)

Keswick

CopelandCopeland BC BC (Cumbria(Cumbria CC) CC) Eden DC (Cumbria CC) Data is available from two-tier authorities in these County Council areas: South Lakeland DC Cheshire South(Cumbria Lakeland CC) DC Durham Cumbria (Cumbria CC) Lancashire Northumberland North Yorkshire

Key: BC = Borough Council DC = District Council CC = County Council Barrow-in-Furness BC (Cumbria CC) Source: MORI

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

Belonging to Copeland 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.

In Copeland, six per cent of residents very strongly identify with the Borough Council area, with four in ten (40%) saying their identity is fairly strong. This is balanced by either feeling not very strongly (42%) or not at all strongly (6%) attached to the area.

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

No opinion/not stated Very strongly Not at all strongly 6% 6% 6%

40% Fairly strongly

42% Not very strongly

Base: 302 Copeland Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

Q22c How strongly do you feel that you belong to the (Borough or District Council) area? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No opinion strongly strongly strongly strongly Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority Allerdale BC 942415 3 Barrow-In-Furness BC 16 49 28 3 4 Carlisle CC 543418 2 Copeland BC 640426 6 Eden DC 754294 5 South Lakeland DC 12 46 34 6 1 Source: MORI

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

The table below shows differences between different types of residents, and their identity with Copeland Borough Council, especially by identity with the area in general and involvement in the community. This suggests that residents who feel more involved in their local community are more likely to identify with the Copeland Borough Council area.

Q22c How strongly do you feel you belong to the Copeland Borough Council area? Very Fairly Not very Not at No strongly strongly strongly all opinion strongly /not stated Base: Overall (302) % 640426 6 Length of residency Under 2 years (27) % 436534 4 3-10 years (65) % 62839179 11 or more years (210) % 744412 6 Social grouping AB (54) % 443409 4 C1 (66) % 844375 7 C2 (77) % 54637102 DE (105) % 83249210 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly (250) % 844413 5 strongly Not very/not at (51) % 021462112 all strongly Involved in community Great deal/ fair (94) % 947391 3 amount Not very much/ (203) % 536438 8 nothing Source: MORI

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

We do not find a clear link between assessments of Borough Council performance and identification with the Borough Council area. Among those who are satisfied with Copeland's services 52% identify very or fairly strongly with the area, compared to 39% of those who are dissatisfied.

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

Belonging to Cumbria County Council Area When we look at identity with the Cumbria County Council area, we also find very few residents placing themselves at the extremes of the scale. Residents are slightly less likely to feel they strongly identify with the area, although the proportions are broadly in line with the findings at the Borough level. In the discussion group we did not find a great deal of attachment to either Copeland or Cumbria.

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

No opinion/not stated Very strongly Not at all strongly 8% 6% 5%

35% Fairly strongly

46% Not very strongly

Base: 302 Copeland Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003 Source: MORI

Q22d How strongly do you feel that you belong to the Cumbria County Council area? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No opinion strongly strongly strongly strongly Base: c.300 residents in each two-tier %%%%% authority Allerdale BC 637485 3 Barrow-In-Furness BC 43248124 Carlisle CC 438479 2 Copeland BC 635465 8 Eden DC 446386 6 South Lakeland DC 83742102 Source: MORI

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

Again identity is stronger for residents who feel involved in their local community, and identify with their neighbourhood.

Q22d How strongly do you feel you belong to the Cumbria County Council area? Very Fairly Not Not at No strongly strongly very all opinion strongly strongly /not stated Base: Overall (302) % 635465 8 Length of residency Under 2 years (27) % 433381214 3-10 years (65) % 827421211 11 or more years (210) % 537482 7 Social grouping AB (54) % 535459 6 C1 (66) % 43446510 C2 (77) % 541438 2 DE (105) % 73049212 Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly (250) % 738463 7 strongly Not very/not at (51) % 020471914 all strongly Involved in community Great deal/ fair (94) % 646422 4 amount Not very much/ (203) % 52949710 nothing Source: MORI

22 Community Research in Copeland Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England

Residents are slightly more likely to feel they strongly identify with the Borough Council area rather than 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 Base: 302 Copeland Borough Council area residents % % % % % This neighbourhood (asked in urban 41 42 13 4 * areas)/ village/or the nearest village (asked in rural areas) This town (asked in urban areas)/the 29 46 19 6 * nearest town (asked in rural areas) Copeland Borough Council area 6 40 42 6 6 Cumbria County Council area 6 35 46 5 8 Source: MORI

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

Knowledge of Local Governance Nearly a third of residents across the Copeland Borough Council area (30%) say that they know a fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, with a further 4% saying they know a great deal. The majority of residents either say they know not very much (55%) or nothing at all (10%). In general it is those in higher social grades who say they have more knowledge about the services they provide.

Two-thirds of residents (64%) are able to spontaneously name Copeland Borough Council as responsible for local government services in their neighbourhood. This is particularly true for residents who are involved with their community (73%). Awareness of the correct name is also generally higher among those in higher social grades (52% of DEs were correct, compared to 71% of C2s, 66% of C1s and 73% of ABs).

Fewer residents spontaneously mention Cumbria County Council as responsible for local government services in their neighbourhood (18%), and it is more likely that those in higher social grades will do so (38% of ABs and 21% of C1s were correct, compared to 12% of C2s and 10% of DEs).

Overall, about a third of residents (34%) fail to spontaneously name correctly either of the full council names. However, it should be noted that there is a close variation on Copeland Borough Council: Copeland Council (16%).

Research by MORI in recent years has shown low awareness of council services, but when prompted, the majority correctly identify the responsibilities of Copeland Borough Council as rubbish collection (77% identify the Borough Council as responsible), street cleaning (70% correct), council housing (69% correct) and Council Tax benefit/housing benefit (56% correct). A similar level of knowledge is seen for the responsibilities of Cumbria County Council: schools/education (67% correct), fire service (61% correct), libraries (63% correct), social services (55% correct).

24 Community Research in Copeland 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. The findings are consistent across different types of residents. In the Copeland Borough Council area half of residents like to know what local councils are doing, but are happy to let them get on with their job.

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 3% their job I’m not interested in what local councils do, as long as they do 17% their job I like to know what local councils are doing, but I’m happy to let them 55% get on with their job I would like to have more of a say in what local councils do and the 20% services they provide I already work for, or am involved with, local councils and 3% the services they provide

Don’t know 3%

Base: 302 Copeland 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 the 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 Copeland Borough Council area discussion group residents concentrated on transport links and socio-economic differences between areas. They perceived connections with Allerdale to the north, but not with Barrow-in-Furness or the South Lakes, the latter being regarded as more prosperous.

In the quantitative survey, residents saw the quality of services (25%) as the single most important consideration if boundaries were to change, closely followed by responding to local people’s wishes (22%).

25

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, some 1,893 interviews across all two-tier authorities in the Cumbria County Council area, with 302 interviews being conducted in the Copeland 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 Copeland 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

1,893 (e.g. total number of interviews in the county 122 of Cumbria) 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 by 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 Copeland 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 Cumbria County Council area are listed below.

Discussion Group Timetable Location Date Allerdale Borough Council Workington 26th July 2003 Barrow-in-Furness Borough Barrow-in-Furness 30th July 2003 Council Carlisle City Council Carlisle 15th July 2003 Copeland Borough Council Whitehaven 26th July 2003

Eden District Council Penrith 15th July 2003 South Lakeland District Council 29th July 2003 Source: MORI

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 from 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. 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: 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 covers all towns and areas mentioned in the surveys covering the North West.

Gazetteer (A-Be) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Abbeytown Allerdale Borough Council Accrington Hyndburn Borough Council Acton Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Adlington Chorley Borough Council Alderley Edge Borough Council Allerdale Allerdale Borough Council Allonby Allerdale Borough Council Alsager Borough Council Alston Council Altham Hyndburn Borough Council Altrincham Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council South Lakeland District Council Antrobus Borough Council Appleby in Eden District Council Appley Bridge West Lancashire District Council Arlecdon Copeland Borough Council South Lakeland District Council Ashton Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Askham Eden District Council Allerdale Borough Council Audlem Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Aughton Lancaster City Council Bacup Rossendale Borough Council Bamber Bridge South Ribble Borough Council Banks West Lancashire District Council Barnoldswick Pendle Borough Council Barnton Vale Royal Borough Council Barrowford Pendle Borough Council Barrow-in-Furness Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Barton Richmondshire District Council Bay Horse Lancaster City Council Bebbington Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council South Lakeland District Council Belle Vue Allerdale Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Be-Ca) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Bidston Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Bigrigg Copeland Borough Council Billington Ribble Valley Borough Council Birkenhead Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Birmingham Birmingham City Council Bispham Blackpool Borough Council Blackburn Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Blackpool Blackpool Borough Council Bleasdale Wyre Borough Council Bollington Macclesfield Borough Council Bolton Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Bolton-le-Sands Lancaster City Council Bradford Bradford City Council Bradwell Derbyshire Dales District Council Brampton Carlisle City Council Brereton Congleton Borough Council Brierfield Pendle Borough Council Bromborough Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Brookfield Preston City Council Brough Eden District Council Broughton Preston City Council Broxton City Council Bunbury Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Burland Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Burnley Burnley Borough Council Burscough West Lancashire District Council Burton Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Burton South Lakeland District Council Burton-in-Kendal South Lakeland District Council Bury Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Buxton High Peak Borough Council Calveley Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Capenhurst Chester City Council Carlisle Carlisle City Council Carlton Hambleton District Council Lancaster City Council Cartmel South Lakeland District Council Catforth Preston City Council Caton Lancaster City Council Catterall Wyre Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Ch-De) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Chapel-en-le-Frith High Peak Borough Council Charnock Richard Chorley Borough Council Chatburn Ribble Valley Borough Council Cheadle Manchester City Council Chelford Macclesfield Borough Council Chester Chester City Council Chipping Ribble Valley Borough Council Chorley Chorley Borough Council Church Hyndburn Borough Council Church Minshull Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Churchtown Wyre Borough Council Claughton Wyre Borough Council Clayton Brook Chorley Borough Council Clayton Green Chorley Borough Council Clayton le Moors Hyndburn Borough Council Clayton-le-Dale Ribble Valley Borough Council Clayton-le-Woods Chorley Borough Council Cleator Moor Copeland Borough Council Cleveleys Wyre Borough Council Clifton Fylde Borough Council Clitheroe Ribble Valley Borough Council Cockermouth Allerdale Borough Council Colne Pendle Borough Council Coniston South Lakeland District Council Copeland Copeland Borough Council Cotebrook Vale Royal Borough Council Crawford West Lancashire District Council Crewe Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Croglin Eden District Council South Lakeland District Council Croston Chorley Borough Council Cuddington Vale Royal Borough Council Dalston Carlisle City Council Dalton-in-Furness Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Darlington Darlington Borough Council Darwen Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Davenham Vale Royal Borough Council Dean Allerdale Borough Council Dearham Allerdale Borough Council Delamere Vale Royal Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (De-Gr) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Derby Derby City Council Dewsbury Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council Distington Copeland Borough Council Downham Ribble Valley Borough Council Durham Durham City Council Earby Pendle Borough Council Eastham Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Eaton Vale Royal Borough Council Eccleston Chorley Borough Council Eden Eden District Council Edenfield Rossendale Borough Council Edgworth Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Egremont Copeland Borough Council Ellesmere Port Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Elswick Fylde Borough Council Elton Chester City Council South Lakeland District Council Fence Pendle Borough Council Fleetwood Wyre Borough Council Flimby Allerdale Borough Council Flookburgh South Lakeland District Council Foulridge Pendle Borough Council Freckleton Fylde Borough Council Frenchwood Preston City Council Frizington Copeland Borough Council Frodsham Vale Royal Borough Council Fulwood Preston City Council Fylde Fylde Borough Council Galgate Lancaster City Council Garrigill Eden District Council Garstang Wyre Borough Council Goosnargh Preston City Council Goostrey Congleton Borough Council Gosforth Copeland Borough Council Grange Preston City Council Grange-over-Sands South Lakeland District Council Grasmere South Lakeland District Council Great Asby Eden District Council Great Broughton Allerdale Borough Council Great Eccleston Wyre Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Gr-Ki) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Great Harwood Hyndburn Borough Council Great Sutton Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Grindleton Ribble Valley Borough Council Halton Halton Borough Council Handforth Macclesfield Borough Council Handforth Dean Macclesfield Borough Council Hanley Stoke-on-Trent City Council Hapton Burnley Borough Council Harraby Carlisle City Council Harrogate Harrogate Borough Council Hartford Vale Royal Borough Council Hartlepool Hartlepool Borough Council Haslingden Rossendale Borough Council Haslington Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Haswell Council Haverthwaite South Lakeland District Council Hawcoat Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Helmshore Rossendale Borough Council Helsby Vale Royal Borough Council Hensingham Copeland Borough Council Hesketh Bank West Lancashire District Council Hexham District Council Heysham Lancaster City Council Heywood Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Higher Walton South Ribble Borough Council Hoghton Chorley Borough Council Holmes Chapel Congleton Borough Council Hornby Lancaster City Council Horwich Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Hough Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Howick South Ribble Borough Council Hutton South Ribble Borough Council Hyndburn Hyndburn Borough Council Jodrell Bank Congleton Borough Council Kells Copeland Borough Council Kendal South Lakeland District Council Keswick Allerdale Borough Council Kidsgrove Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Kings Meaburn Eden District Council Kingsley Vale Royal Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Ki-Mo) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area South Lakeland District Council Eden District Council Knott End Wyre Borough Council Knutsford Macclesfield Borough Council Lamplugh Copeland Borough Council Lancaster Lancaster City Council Lanercost Carlisle City Council Langho Ribble Valley Borough Council Leeds Leeds City Council Levens South Lakeland District Council Leyland South Ribble Borough Council Little Leigh Vale Royal Borough Council Little Sutton Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Littleton Chester City Council Liverpool Liverpool City Council Longridge Ribble Valley Borough Council Longton Carlisle City Council Longtown Carlisle City Council Lostock Hall South Ribble Borough Council Low Row Allerdale Borough Council Lowca Copeland Borough Council Lowther Eden District Council Lytham Fylde Borough Council Lytham St Annes Fylde Borough Council Macclesfield Macclesfield Borough Council Malpas Chester City Council Manchester Manchester City Council Market Drayton North District Council Allerdale Borough Council Mawdesley Chorley Borough Council Mellor Ribble Valley Borough Council Mellor Brook Ribble Valley Borough Council Middlewich Congleton Borough Council Millom Copeland Borough Council South Lakeland District Council Mirehouse Copeland Borough Council Mobberley Macclesfield Borough Council Lancaster City Council Morton Eden District Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Mu-Ri) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Much Hoole South Ribble Borough Council Nantwich Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Natland South Lakeland District Council Nelson Pendle Borough Council Ness Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Neston Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Nether Alderley Macclesfield Borough Council Nether Kellet Lancaster City Council New Barns Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council New Longton South Ribble Borough Council New Mills Macclesfield Borough Council Newburgh West Lancashire District Council Newcastle-under-Lyme Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Newcastle-upon-Tyne Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council Newton Fylde Borough Council Northwich Vale Royal Borough Council Nottingham Nottingham City Council Oldham Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council Ormskirk West Lancashire District Council Oswaldtwistle Hyndburn Borough Council Out Rawcliffe Wyre Borough Council Padiham Burnley Borough Council Papcastle Allerdale Borough Council Parbold West Lancashire District Council Parkgate Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Pendle Pendle Borough Council Penrith Eden District Council Penwortham South Ribble Borough Council Pilling Wyre Borough Council Port Sunlight Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Poulton Wyre Borough Council Poulton-le-Fylde Wyre Borough Council Poynton Macclesfield Borough Council Preston Preston City Council Queensferry Flintshire County Council, Wales Ramsbottom Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Rawtenstall Rossendale Borough Council Renwick Eden District Council Ribble Valley Ribble Valley Borough Council Ribchester Ribble Valley Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Ri-St) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Ribble Valley Borough Council Rishton Hyndburn Borough Council Rochdale Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Rockcliffe Carlisle City Council Rode Heath Congleton Borough Council Rossendale Rossendale Borough Council Rowrah Copeland Borough Council Runcorn Halton Borough Council Salesbury Ribble Valley Borough Council Salford Salford City Council Salterbeck Allerdale Borough Council Samlesbury South Ribble Borough Council Sandbach Congleton Borough Council Saughall Chester City Council Scarisbrick West Lancashire District Council Scholar Green Congleton Borough Council Scorton Wyre Borough Council Seascale Copeland Borough Council Seaton Allerdale Borough Council Sellafield Copeland Borough Council Shap Eden District Council Shavington Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Shotton District Council Allerdale Borough Council Simonstone Ribble Valley Borough Council Singleton Fylde Borough Council Skelmersdale West Lancashire District Council Skelsmergh South Lakeland District Council Skelton Eden District Council Skipton Craven District Council Slyne Lancaster City Council Sockbridge Eden District Council South Manchester Manchester City Council South Ribble South Ribble Borough Council South Wirral Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Southport Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council St Anne’s Fylde Borough Council St Bees Copeland Borough Council St Helens St Helens Met Council Stacksteads Rossendale Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (St-Wi) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Stockport Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Stoke-on-Trent Stoke-on-Trent City Council Tarleton West Lancashire District Council Tarporley Vale Royal Borough Council Tarvin Chester City Council Tattenhall Chester City Council Thornton Wyre Borough Council Tilston Chester City Council Todmorden Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Torver South Lakeland District Council Trawden Pendle Borough Council Treales Fylde Borough Council Troutbeck Bridge South Lakeland District Council South Lakeland District Council Up Holland West Lancashire District Council Upton Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Vale Royal Vale Royal Borough Council Vicars Cross Chester City Council Walney Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Walton-le-Dale South Ribble Borough Council Warrington Borough Council Warton Fylde Borough Council Waterfoot Rossendale Borough Council Waterside Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Weaverham Vale Royal Borough Council Wesham Fylde Borough Council Whaley Bridge High Peak Borough Council Whalley Ribble Valley Borough Council Whitby Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Whitchurch District Council Whitehaven Copeland Borough Council Whittle-le-Woods Chorley Borough Council Whitworth Rossendale Borough Council Wigan Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Allerdale Borough Council Willaston Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Wilmslow Macclesfield Borough Council Wilpshire Ribble Valley Borough Council South Lakeland District Council Winsford Vale Royal Borough Council Source: MORI Gazetteer (Wi-Z) Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council Area Wirral Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Withnell Chorley Borough Council Woodplumpton Preston City Council Workington Allerdale Borough Council Wray Lancaster City Council Wrenbury Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Wrexham Wrexham County Borough Council, Wales Wrightington Bar West Lancashire District Council Wythenshaw Manchester City 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 COUNTIES.

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