Local Government Review in the Selby District Council Area, North Yorkshire Additional Research Local Government Review in the S

Home , Selby, Selby District, Tadcaster

Local Government Review in the Selby District Council Area, North Yorkshire

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

Option D 43

4. Preferred New Council Name 47

5. Community Identity 49

APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up Questionnaires Selby district Tadcaster North-east Selby

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 Selby District 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 Selby district, North Yorkshire, and covers both the main research and the additional interviews. Further details of the approach taken in Selby 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:

• Unless otherwise stated, reference is made to districts rather than towns. For example ‘Selby’ refers to the District Council area of that name, rather than to the town.

• Two-tier borough, city or district council areas are referred to as ‘districts’.

• The Boundary Committee for England is referred to as ‘the Committee’.

• CC refers to ‘County Council’, BC to ‘Borough Council’, MBC to ‘Metropolitan Borough Council’ and DC to ‘District Council’.

• An asterisk in a table or chart refers to a percentage between zero and 0.5.

• Definitions of ‘social grade’, and ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, are provided in Appendix 3.

• ‘Review’ refers to the Committee’s review of local government.

• Some figures in charts and tables, and in the marked-up questionnaires at Appendix 4, may not add up to 100%. Occasionally figures may also vary by 1%. In both cases, this is due to rounding. The definitive figures may be found in the computer tabulations provided under separate cover.

• Base sizes have been given throughout this report. Where the base is under 50, considerable caution should be applied when making any inferences.

6 The North Yorkshire County Council Area The

7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Selby District Council area, North Yorkshire (in the Yorkshire and the Humber region). The Selby 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, 313 interviews took place across the district. Second, MORI undertook further interviews in two areas in the north of the district in order to bring the total number of interviews in each of those areas to around 200 (including the relatively small number of interviews which had already taken place as part of the main research). The two areas were: Tadcaster (the District Council wards of Tadcaster East and Tadcaster West) and North-east Selby (the District Council wards of Appleton Roebuck, Riccall with Escrick and North Duffield).

In Tadcaster, MORI interviewed 30 residents as part of the main research, together with 180 interviews as part of the additional research, making a total of 210. In North-east Selby, we interviewed 19 residents as part of the main research, together with 188 interviewed as part of the additional research, making a total of 207.

In this report we have often reported separately on the data from Selby district as a whole, Tadcaster and North-east Selby. 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.

In each case, quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age, gender and work status. The methodology applied in this research, along with showcards showing the options put forward for consultation and marked- up questionnaires, are set out in the appendices to this report. The marked-up questionnaires reflect the findings as follows: • The main research in Selby as a whole (313 interviews);

• Interviews in Tadcaster from the main research and the additional research (210 interviews);

• Interviews in North-east Selby from the main research and the additional research (207 interviews).

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 Vickie Blair, Senior Research Executive Tamara Burrows, Research Executive Emma Holloway, Senior 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 North Yorkshire generally, the most important issues which Selby 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 Tadcaster and North-east Selby though, in the latter case, residents place less priority on the cost of services. 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 (four unitary councils): - Craven and Harrogate districts combined; - Hambleton and Richmondshire districts combined; - Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; and - Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire combined.

- Option C (three unitary councils): - Craven and Harrogate districts combined; - Hambleton, Richmondshire, Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; and - Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire combined.

- Option D (three unitary councils): - Hambleton, Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; - Craven, Harrogate and Richmondshire districts combined; and - Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire combined. Most Preferred Option • There are marked distinctions between Selby residents’ views on alternative patterns of unitary local government and those held in most of the rest of North Yorkshire. Overall, there is a preference in North Yorkshire for the Committee’s Option B: across the county, it is preferred by one in three residents. Options A and D are the next most preferred (by around one in five and one in six respectively); just under one in ten state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change, while 4% state some other (unprompted) option.

• But across Selby district as a whole, Option A is most preferred by some margin, by just under two in five residents, while no other prompted option is nominated by more than one in eight (Option D being the second most popular choice). As in North Yorkshire generally, just under one in ten Selby residents state an unprompted preference for no change. In addition, around one is six (15%) name an alternative (unprompted) option – around half of whom nominate an authority based upon a combination of Selby with York.

• Option A is also clearly the most preferred option in Tadcaster and North-east Selby (by around two in five residents in each case). Strength of feeling for their preference for Option A, however, is less strong in Tadcaster and North-east Selby

11 than is evident in the rest of the district and in the county as a whole. The main reason for preferring Option A in Selby is the view that it would be more efficient or provide better value for money (mentioned by 46% of those preferring that option). No single reason for the preference emerges as strongly from Tadcaster and North- east Selby.

• There is relatively little difference between support for Option B (the second preferred choice in Tadcaster) and for Option D (the second choice in Selby district and North-east Selby), each being nominated by around one in ten. Residents’ main unprompted reason for liking Option B is their preference for a small council area in both Selby district and North-east Selby though no strong reason emerges from Tadcaster.

• There is an important additional distinction between Tadcaster and North-east Selby and the rest of the district. In Tadcaster and North-east Selby, fewer residents nominate an unprompted preference for no change (6% in each case, compared with 10% in the district as a whole) and fewer nominate an unprompted alternative option (4% and 2% respectively, compared with 15% in Selby as a whole). Just 1% nominate the combination between Selby and York in North-east Selby; no one did so in Tadcaster. Least Preferred Option • In contrast to the differences of view evident about residents’ most preferred option, there is a more consistent view in North Yorkshire about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is the least preferred option in the county as a whole (by 54%) and in each of the seven districts, including Selby. It is also the least preferred option in Tadcaster and north-east Selby. No other option was mentioned by more than one is six residents in the county, district, Tadcaster or North-east Selby. Knowledge of Local Government • Most Selby residents do not claim to know much about local government. In the district as a whole, under half claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide – a little more than in the county as a whole. But knowledge is lower in Tadcaster (a third know a great deal or fair amount) and north-east Selby (around two in five). Knowledge of the Review • Around one in eight residents in Selby claim to know much (i.e. a great deal or fair amount) about the Committee’s review of local government – a similar proportion as in the county generally. But fewer residents have heard of the review in Tadcaster and North-east Selby. In both those areas, most residents have not heard of the review: 60% had not heard of it in Tadcaster and 52% in North-east Selby. In the district 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 55%), TV, radio and other media (36%) mostly programmes or news on TV and leaflets, whether produced by local authorities, the Committee or others (27%). A similar pattern is also found in Tadcaster and North-east Selby. Expressing a View • Most residents are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. In the county generally, and in Selby as a whole, fewer than one in ten say they do not know what is their most preferred option. In Tadcaster and North- east Selby, however, many more than in the rest of the district say that they don’t know – over a quarter of residents in each case.

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 Selby, only 5% claim to know a great deal about local government, while fewer than half claim to know a great deal or fair amount (45%). Around half say they know not very much or nothing at all (53%). This in broadly in line with findings in North Yorkshire as a whole.

• Knowledge about local government is a little lower in Tadcaster (where 33% claim to know a great deal or fair amount), and North-east Selby (41%), than in the rest of the district.

• 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 Selby as a whole, 62% 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 35% 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

Selby district Tadcaster district North-east Selby

2% 1% 5% 5% 5% 10% 3% 11%

30% 36% 40% 48% 47% 56%

Base: Selby: 313 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: Tadcaster: 210 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: North-east Selby: 207 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

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 Selby, residents are generally highly satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Nine in ten are satisfied (90%) compared with just 5% who are dissatisfied. However, satisfaction is lower in Selby than in other North Yorkshire districts (the average for the county is 93%). The difference is more marked when we look at the proportion who are very satisfied: again this is lower in Selby (50%) than in other districts in the county (the county average is 58%).

• Satisfaction is higher in North-east Selby (94% being fairly or very satisfied), and a little lower in Tadcaster (86%), than in the rest of the district.

• Those who have a strong sense of belonging to their district council area, county council area or the county area of North Yorkshire, and those who are satisfied with the services local councils provide, are also more likely to be satisfied with their local area – a pattern which applies in Tadcaster and North-east Selby as well as to the district as a whole.

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

Selby district Tadcaster North-east Selby

3% 4% 2% 2% 5% 2% 5% 7% 3%

40% 30% 50% 46% 64% 46%

Base: Selby: 313 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004 Base: Tadcaster: 210 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004 Base: North-east Selby: 207 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

14 Involvement in the Community

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

• Just over one in three Selby residents feel involved a great deal or fair amount in their local community (37%), compared to almost two thirds who feel not very involved or not at all involved (62%). Just over one in six residents do not feel at all involved (15%). Residents’ sense of involvement in their community is slightly lower in Selby (and Scarborough) than in other North Yorkshire districts. Across the county as a whole, 42% feel involved very or fairly strongly.

• This relates to social grade, as well as to residents’ sense of belonging to their district council area, county council area and the county area of North Yorkshire, and to their length of residence in the area. There is also a relationship with the type of area in which Selby residents live: 41% of those in a rural area feel involved with their community compared with 26% of those living in an urban area.

• There are also differences within the district – between 39% in North-east Selby who feel involved (a great deal or fair amount), compared with 32% in Tadcaster. There is a more marked distinction between those who feel involved ‘a great deal’ – 16% in north-east Selby compared with just 4% in Tadcaster. The general patterns relating to residents’ social grade, sense of belonging and to length of residence in the area occur in both Tadcaster and North-east Selby.

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

Selby district Tadcaster North-east Selby

1% 10% 1%4% 16% 15% 20% 24% 28% 27% 23%

47% 41% 42%

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 also found in North Yorkshire: in the county as a whole, 60% of residents feel they belong very or fairly strongly to their district council area compared to 57% to their county council area.

• Residents’ sense of belonging both to county council and district council areas is lower in Selby than in all the other districts in the county (apart from Scarborough) – and there is little distinction between their sense of belonging (very or fairly strongly) to the district council area and county council area (each 51% and 50% respectively).

• As MORI usually finds, there is a greater attachment to the ‘county area’ than to the ‘county council area’. In North Yorkshire as a whole, 76% of residents feel strongly attached to the county of North Yorkshire (compared to 57% to the county council area). This hierarchy is maintained for Selby, although the absolute sense of belonging is lower than in the county generally: 68% of Selby residents feel strongly attached to the county of North Yorkshire.

• However, there are variations within the district. Generally, attachments are higher in North-east Selby than in Tadcaster: 57% and 43% respectively feel a strong sense of belonging to the district council area; 57% and 52% respectively to the county council area, and 84% and 70% respectively to the county of North Yorkshire. Generally, district attachment is lower among older people, but county and county council attachment(s) are higher among this group.

Sense of Belonging – Selby district

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

Selby DC area North Yorkshire CC area County of North Yorkshire

3% 5% 2% 13% 12% 12% 14% 13% 34% 18%

38% 38% 32% 32%

34%

Base: Selby: 313 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

16 Sense of Belonging – Tadcaster

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

Selby DC area North Yorkshire CC area County of North Yorkshire

7% 11% 8% 12% 14% 13%

20% 16% 41% 35% 9%

38% 20% 26% 29%

Base: 210 residents, Tadcaster, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

Sense of Belonging – North-east Selby

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

Selby DC area North Yorkshire CC area County of North Yorkshire

6% 6% 4%3% 15% 6% 18% 11% 9%

43%

30% 26% 42% 39% 41%

Base: 207 residents, North-east Selby, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

2. Attitudes to Issues under Review Knowledge of Local Government Review Relatively few residents in North Yorkshire claim to know more than a little about the Committee’s review of local government – just 12% overall claim that they knew a great deal or fair amount before their MORI interview, and there is relatively little variation between districts.

• The same proportion in Selby as in North Yorkshire generally (12%) claim that they knew much (a great deal or fair amount) about the review before MORI’s interview. But fewer residents knew much about the review in Tadcaster (5%) and North-east Selby (10%) than in the rest of the district.

• There are some significant variations between demographic groups. Across the county, those in the higher social grades are much more likely to know about the review: 19% of those in social grades AB know a great deal or fair amount compared with just 6% of those in social grades DE. Older people are also more likely to know of the review: 17% of those aged 55+ claim to know a great deal or fair amount compared with 4% 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 (23% 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 – 13% claim to know a great deal or fair amount compared with 9% of those who have lived in the area for five years or less.

• Small base sizes on this issue mean that similar analysis on a district or sub- district 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 Selby.

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

Selby district Tadcaster North-east Selby

1% 2% 2% 2%10% 5% 4% 8%

19% 21% 24% 50% 60% 52% 13% 13% 14%

19 Around half of residents across the county have heard of the review, even if they know nothing about it (49%). A similar proportion has heard of the review in Selby (50%), although few have heard of it in North-east Selby (44%)and Tadcaster (37%). 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 (especially programmes and news on TV), and then leaflets (from local authorities, the Committee or other sources). As the following charts illustrate, the patterns in Selby district as a whole also occur in Tadcaster and North-east Selby.

Sources of information – Overview (Selby district)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 56%

TV\Radio\Posters 35%

Leaflets 27%

Councils 11%

Websites 3%

Base: 165 Selby residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

20 Sources of information – Overview (Tadcaster)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 36%

TV\Radio\Posters 27%

Leaflets 19%

Councils 3%

Websites 1%

Base: 89 Tadcaster residents, 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Sources of information – Overview (North-east Selby)

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 48%

TV\Radio\Posters 33%

Leaflets 7%

Councils 9%

Websites 0%

Base: 102 North-east Selby 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 four patterns of unitary local government in North Yorkshire for consultation, while also remaining open to giving further consideration to alternative patterns. In each of the options, apart from Option A, the proposal for Selby was the creation of a new unitary council based upon a combination of Selby district with the adjacent unitary council area of East Riding of Yorkshire. The options for the North Yorkshire area were:

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

• Option B (four unitary councils): - Craven and Harrogate districts combined; - Hambleton and Richmondshire districts combined; - Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; - Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire combined.

• Option C (three unitary councils): - Craven and Harrogate districts combined; - Hambleton, Richmondshire, Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; - Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire combined.

• Option D (three unitary councils): - Hambleton, Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; - Craven, Harrogate and Richmondshire districts combined; - Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire 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 North Yorkshire for the Committee’s Option B. This is preferred by one in three residents (33%). Options A and D are the next most preferred (by 23% and 16% respectively). Option C is preferred by 7%. Just under one in ten state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change (9%), while 4% state some other (unprompted) option.

• But across Selby district as a whole, Option A is preferred by some margin, by two in five residents (38%), while no other prompted option is nominated by more than one in eight (Option D being the second most popular choice, supported by 13% of residents). As in North Yorkshire generally, just under one in ten Selby residents state an unprompted preference for no change (9%). In addition, 15% of Selby residents name an alternative (unprompted) option – around half of whom (9% of all residents) nominate an authority based upon a combination of Selby district with the city of York.

• This general picture for Selby also emerges from Tadcaster and North-east Selby. Option A is the most preferred in each area (by 43% and 39% respectively). There is relatively little difference between support for Option B (the second preferred choice in Tadcaster – by 10% of residents) and for Option D (the second choice in North-east Selby – by 11%).

23 • But there is a distinction between these two areas and the rest of Selby. In Tadcaster and North-east Selby, fewer residents nominate an unprompted preference for no change (6% in each case) and fewer nominate another unprompted alternative option (3% and 2% respectively), with a very small proportion of people nominating the combination of Selby district with the city of York. This last point may perhaps reflect a phenomenon MORI has found elsewhere of those living just outside an urban area being protective of their identity with the surrounding area.

• In contrast to the differences of view evident about residents’ most preferred option, there is a more general view in North Yorkshire about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is the least preferred option in the county as a whole (nominated by 53% of residents). This is also the least preferred option in Selby district (38%) and in Tadcaster (21%), albeit to a lesser extent. In north-east Selby, Options A and B were similarly least preferred (17% and 18% respectively).

• Most residents are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. In the county as a whole, just 9% say they do not know what is their most preferred option (8% in Selby). In Tadcaster and north-east Selby, however, many more than in the rest of the district say that they don’t know – 26% and 31% respectively.

• Generally, rather more do not know their least preferred option: 18% in North Yorkshire as a whole and 27% in Selby. However, ‘don’t knows’ are much higher in the areas adjacent to York - 49% in Tadcaster and 51% in north-east Selby.

Preferred Pattern of Local Government – North Yorkshire

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 23% 53%

Option B 33% 17%

Option C 7% 6%

Option D 16% 6%

Other Option 4%

No change 9%

None

Don't know 9% 18%

Base: 2,225 North Yorkshire residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

24 Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Selby district

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 38% 38%

Option B 10% 26%

Option C 8% 5%

Option D 13% 4%

Other Option 15%

No change 9%

None

Don't know 8% 27%

Base: Selby: 313 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

Preferred Pattern of Local Government – Tadcaster

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 43% 21%

Option B 10% 19%

Option C 4% 3%

Option D 8% 8%

Other Option 3%

No change 6%

None

Don't know 26% 49%

Base: Tadcaster: 210 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

25 Preferred Pattern of Local Government – North-east Selby

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 39% 17%

Option B 8% 18%

Option C4% 10%

Option D 11% 4%

Other Option 2%

No change 6%

None

Don't know 31% 51%

Base: North-east Selby: 207 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 local services, cost of local services, accountability to local people and responding to local people’s wishes. These four factors apply in each area - North Yorkshire, Selby, Tadcaster and North-east Selby. No other factor is mentioned by more than 5% of residents in any of the four 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) and higher social grades (AB) are more likely to identify quality of services.

27 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Selby district)

Q24 When deciding on how to change the boundaries of council areas in North Yorkshire, 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 23%

Cost of services 20%

Being accountable 19% to local people

Responding to local 19% people's wishes

Base: 313 Selby residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (Tadcaster)

% Prompted preferences (top four mentions)

Quality of services 26%

Cost of services 22%

Being accountable 16% to local people

Responding to local 13% people's wishes

Base: Tadcaster: 210 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

28 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues (North-east Selby)

% Prompted preferences (top four mentions)

Quality of services 24%

Being accountable 22% to local people

Responding to local 18% people's wishes

Cost of services 10%

Base: North-east Selby: 207 residents, 18+, 1 December 2003 - 23 February 2004

The Following Sections The following sections look at the data for each of the four 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 Selby, Tadcaster and North-east Selby 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 North Yorkshire 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 the North Yorkshire County Council area.

31 In the county as a whole, residents’ reasons for preferring Option A focus primarily on efficiency and value for money (mentioned by almost half, 49%), the large area it would cover (32%), and strength of council (29%). In Selby district, efficiency and value for money is again the main factor (mentioned by 51%) though no factor emerges so strongly in the sub-district areas. On the other hand, those who least prefer this option in the county as a whole focus primarily on its geographical size as a disadvantage (mentioned by over three quarters, 77%). Other key factors are the view that it would not reflect local views (47%) or community identity (39%), and would not improve council services (33%). A broadly similar view occurs in Selby district and North-east Selby though local geography is most mentioned in Tadcaster.

Reasons for Option A being Most Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

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

More efficient/better value for money 49%

I would like to see my council cover a large 32% area

Would create a strong council 29%

It's the best of the available options 22%

It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 20% best

Base: 472 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option A being Least Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option? % Option A (top five reasons)

I would not like my council to cover a large 77% area

It would not reflect local people's views 47%

It would not reflect local identity 39%

It would not improve council services 33%

It's the worst of the available options 28%

Base: 1,198 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

32 Compared with a county-wide preference by 23% of residents, Option A is more preferred among those who are less involved in the community (26%), men (26%), and those dissatisfied with district council services (28%).

Residents who favour Option A are quite firm about their preference – 26% feel very strongly and 54% fairly strongly (a total of 80% feeling very or fairly strongly).

Strength of Feeling for Preferring Option A (North Yorkshire)

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

5% 3% 26% 13%

54%

Base: 472 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

This strength of view is also held among those who support Option A in Selby - 80% feel very or fairly strongly about their preference. But, although - as discussed earlier - Option A is the most preferred option in both Tadcaster and North-east Selby, the preference is less strongly held in both these areas than is the case in the rest of the district and the county as a whole. The preference is held very or fairly strongly by 70% of those who prefer this option in Tadcaster and 67% in North-east Selby.

Option B

The Committee’s Option B comprises four unitary councils to serve: (1) Craven and Harrogate districts combined; (2) Hambleton and Richmondshire districts combined; (3) Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; and (4) Selby district combined with the East Riding of Yorkshire.

35 In the county as a whole, residents’ reasons for their preference for Option B focus primarily on the wish to see the council cover a small area (mentioned by almost three quarters - 72%), along with the view that it would reflect local people’s views (49%) and sense of identity (41%), and would be more accountable (30%). On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the view that it would be less efficient (mentioned by 42%), would not like to see the council cover a small area (22%), and would not improve council services (21%).

Reasons for Option B being Most Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

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

I would like to see my council cover a 72% small area

It would reflect local people's views 49%

It would reflect local identity 41%

The council would be more accountable 30%

It's the best of the available options 29%

Base: 737 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option B being Least Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option? % Option B (top six reasons) The council would be less efficient / value 42% for money

I would not like my council to cover a small 22% area

It would not improve council services 21%

It's the worst of available options 20%

It would create a weak council 19%

It's my instinct/I just think it would be better 19%

Base: 346 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

36 Demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option B are not particularly striking. But, compared with a county-wide preference for Option B by 33% of residents, it is more preferred among women (35%), those aged 18 to 34 years (38%), those with children in the household (40%), those more involved in the community (38%), and those who feel they belong to the district council area (35%).

As with Option A, those residents who favour Option B feel similarly strongly about their preference – 32% feel very strongly and 58% fairly strongly (a total of 90% feeling very or fairly strongly). Support for this option is low in Selby, precluding further sub-district analysis.

Strength of Feeling for Option B (North Yorkshire)

Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would you 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% 7% 1%

32%

58%

Base: 737 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Option C

The Committee’s Option C comprises three unitary councils to serve: (1) Craven and Harrogate districts combined; (2) Hambleton, Richmondshire, Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; and (3) Selby district combined with the East Riding of Yorkshire.

39 North Yorkshire residents’ reasons for preferring Option C focus primarily on the wish to see the council cover a small area (mentioned by almost half, 49%) and also the view that it would reflect local identity (32%), local geography (30%), and local people’s views (30%). On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the wish not to have the council cover a large area (29%). Other key factors, mentioned by around one in five each, are the view that it would not improve council services, it would be the worst option, or that it would not reflect local geography or identity.

Reasons for Option C being Most Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

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 small 49% area

Would reflect local identity 32%

Would reflect local geography 30%

Would reflect local people's views 30%

It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 25% best

Base: 157 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option C being Least Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option? % Option C (top five reasons)

I would not like my council to cover a large 29% area

It would not improve council services 19%

It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 19% worst

It would not reflect local geography 17%

It would not reflect local identity 17%

Base: 133 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

40 Demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option C are not particularly striking. But, compared with a county-wide preference by 7% of residents, Option C is more preferred among those who feel less of a sense of belonging to the county area (10%).

As with the other options, residents who favour Option C are firm about their preference - 19% feel very strongly and 68% fairly strongly (a total of 87% feeling very or fairly strongly). Support for this option is low in Selby, precluding further sub-district analysis.

Strength of Feeling for Preferring Option C (North Yorkshire)

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% 9% 19%

68%

Base: 157 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Option D

The Committee’s Option D comprises three unitary councils to serve: (1) Hambleton, Ryedale and Scarborough districts combined; (2) Craven, Harrogate and Richmondshire districts combined; and (3) Selby district combined with the East Riding of Yorkshire.

43 Residents’ reasons for their preference for Option D focus primarily on the wish to see a council cover a small area (mentioned by 37%), along with the view that it would reflect local geography and sense of identity, and local people’s views. On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the wish not to see a council to covering a large area (35%).

Reasons for Option D being Most Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

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

I would like to see my council cover a 37% small area

It would reflect local geography 36%

It would reflect local identity 36%

It would reflect local people's views 31%

More efficient/ better value for money 30%

Base: 358 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option D, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option D being Least Preferred Option (North Yorkshire)

Q18 Which [of these] reasons apply to why you least like this option? % Option D (top five reasons)

I would not like my council to cover a large 35% area

It's the worst of available options 25%

It's my instinct - I just think it would be the 25% worst

It would not reflect local people's views 22%

It would not reflect local identity 19%

Base: 120 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option D, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

44 As with Option C, demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option D are not particularly noticeable. But, compared with a county-wide preference for Option D by 16% of residents, it is more preferred among those from higher social groups (19% of social group AB).

As with the other options, those residents who favour Option D feel strongly about their preference – 24% feel very strongly and 61% fairly strongly (a total of 85% feeling very or fairly strongly). Support for this option is low in Selby, precluding further sub-district analysis.

Strength of Feeling for Option D (North Yorkshire)

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 Don't know

4% 11% 24%

61%

Base: 358 North Yorkshire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option D, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

4. Preferred New Council Name The Committee also wished to consult on possible names for any new unitary councils. Those respondents who preferred each option were asked about a number of names in relation to that option. They were also invited to nominate an alternative name if they wished. Respondents were not asked about names for Option A, however, as the Committee considered there would be less scope for choice for a county-wide authority.

Preferences of North Yorkshire residents overall are set out in MORI’s separate report on county-wide findings. Base sizes are low, but the most popular choices of name for the council which would cover Selby district and East Riding of Yorkshire combined are ‘East Riding of Yorkshire and Selby’ and ‘East Riding of Yorkshire’ – a view that also applies in Tadcaster and north-east Selby.

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 Selby) 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 Selby is of residents using many facilities which are outside the district at least as much as those which are inside. For the district as a whole, there are three major local authority areas which act as a draw for Selby residents – York, Leeds and Wakefield. As the table below shows, however, there are some distinctions between the north of the district (Tadcaster and North-east Selby) and the rest of the district. York is a much stronger practical draw in the north of the district – unsurprisingly, since it is adjacent to that part of the district. Wakefield, on the other hand, is not a major attraction in either Tadcaster or North-east Selby; Leeds remains an attraction in Tadcaster but not in North-east Selby. The East Riding of Yorkshire area is not a significant draw for residents anywhere in Selby, even less so in Tadcaster and North-east Selby. Main Food Shopping Half of Selby residents (50%) undertake their main food shopping inside Selby district. The most common destination is the town of Selby itself (43%), followed by two towns outside the Selby area - York (23%) and Pontefract, in the Wakefield MBC area (11%). Overall, almost two thirds of DE residents (61%) stay within Selby district for their main food shopping, compared with only 43% of ABs. In contrast, visitors to York are more likely to be social grades AB (33%) than DE (16%). Residents in urban areas are more likely to stay in Selby district for their food shopping than those in rural areas (70% and 41% respectively).

In Tadcaster, a slightly lower proportion of residents undertake their main food shopping inside Selby district (43%), mostly in the town itself (42%). A much higher proportion of Tadcaster residents do their food shopping in York (37%) than is the case for Selby residents generally. Similarly, in North-east Selby, 41% undertake their main food shopping in Selby district: most such residents shop in the town of Selby (35%) and few do in Tadcaster (5%); York is a bigger draw than elsewhere in the district, attracting 53% of North-east Selby residents for main food shopping.

49 Clothes and Household Goods Shopping Only 18% of residents generally stay within Selby district for clothes and household goods shopping. York is the most frequently visited destination for this kind of trip, with over half of the residents (51%) visiting the city. Leeds is the other major destination (16%).

In Tadcaster and North-east Selby, York dominates. In Tadcaster, York attracts 75% of residents for clothes and household goods shopping; 15% go to Leeds and very few remain in Selby district (3%). In North-east Selby, 78% shop in York, with the town of Selby the only other significant mention (13%).

Schools Three in ten of our sample in Selby district (29%) have school-aged children (aged 5-16) living in their household. Over two thirds of parents (69%) send their children to school within Selby district. The most common location is Selby itself (21%) but, as would be expected, there is a spread around the area. Few travel to school in York (9%).

In Tadcaster, the great majority of children go to school in the town (85%) and few go to York. But in North-east Selby, York is a much stronger pull (with 38% of children going to school in the city).

Places of Work Nearly two thirds of our sample in Selby district are in full- or part-time work (61%). Of those in work, around half do so within the district (51%). These are mainly women (56%), with men in general more likely to work in a variety of locations (46% work within the area). Outside the district, the next most frequent work places are the York and Leeds areas (14% and 13% respectively).

In Tadcaster, a similar proportion works within the district (42%), but a higher proportion works within the Leeds area (37%) than is found among Selby district residents generally; fewer work in York (10%). In contrast, York is a far greater pull for North-east Selby residents: almost as many work in the city (37%) as in Selby district (39%).

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

Leisure and Sporting Activities Almost half of Selby residents stay in Selby district for leisure and sporting activities (48%). The town of Selby is the most frequent destination (35%). York is also a major attraction (29%), particularly among 35-54 year olds. One in ten visit Leeds for their leisure activities.

A similar pattern applies in Tadcaster but in North-east Selby, once again York is a major attraction: 51% go the city for their leisure and sporting activities.

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.

50 Effective communities

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

% of residents identifying Q28: Q29: Q30: Q31: Q32: Q33: town or area (where at least 3%) Main Shop for Child’s Main Other Leisure & food clothes school place adults sporting shopping & of work place activities house- of work hold goods (note 1) (note 2) (note 3) %%%%%% 1. Selby residents Base: Selby residents (313) (313) (92) (191) (185) (313)

Selby District Council area 50 18 69 51 45 48

Other North Yorkshire districts Harrogate BC area 1 1 3 * 1 1 Ryedale DC area * 0 4 1 2 *

Other Authorities East Riding of Yorkshire Council area 5 1 4 3 6 4 Doncaster MBC area 1 1 0 1 1 1 Leeds City Council area 6 16 2 17 21 11 Wakefield MBC area 14 10 3 5 8 9 City of York Council area 23 51 9 14 17 29

2. North-east Selby residents Base: North-east Selby (207) (207) (52) (111) (129) (207)

Selby District Council 41 13 56 39 34 40

Other North Yorkshire districts None

Other Authorities East Riding of Yorkshire Council area 3 1 0 3 1 1 Leeds City Council area 0 2 0 4 7 3 City of York Council area 53 78 39 37 33 51

3. Tadcaster residents Base: Tadcaster residents (210) (210) (54) (104) (108) (210)

Selby District Council area 43 3 85 42 40 55

Other North Yorkshire districts Harrogate BC area 5 2 3 2 2 3

Other Authorities Leeds City Council area 13 16 4 37 33 19 City of York Council area 37 75 5 10 18 33

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

51 Affective Communities

In the district as a whole, half of all residents (50%) identify most with the town of Selby, with one in six identifying with York (16%). Similarly, in Tadcaster, two-thirds of residents most identify with that town (65%) and one in five with York (19%).

Just as with effective communities, however, the links with York in North-east Selby are much stronger. More residents cite York as the town with which they most associate than with any town within Selby district. Association with Town – Selby district

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

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Selby District Council area

Selby 50%

Tadcaster 8%

Sherburn in Elmet 4%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Selby District Council area

York 16%

Leeds 6%

Pontefract 4%

Base: 313 Selby residents 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

52 Association with Town – Tadcaster

Q27 Overall, which town do you currently most associate yourself with? UNPROMPTED Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Selby District Council area

Tadcaster 65%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Selby District Council area

York 19%

Leeds 6%

Wetherby 4%

Base: 210 Tadcaster residents 18+, 1 December 2003 – 23 February 2004

Association with Town – North-east Selby

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

Mentions (3%+) of towns inside Selby District Council area

Selby 33%

Tadcaster 5%

Riccall 6%

Mentions (3%+) of towns outside Selby District Council area

York 49%

Base: 207 north-east Selby residents 18+, 1 December – 23 February 2004

It is interesting that, in the district as a whole, relatively few residents say they most identify with York, despite frequent visits there for shopping and leisure activities. This suggests that, for most of the district (including Tadcaster), it may be a good day out, but does not form an integral bond with the people of the Selby District Council area. In North-east Selby, however, the picture is quite different – both effective and affective ties with York are much stronger.

Appendices

1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up Questionnaires - Selby district - Tadcaster - North-east Selby

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.

57 J20362/1 NORTH YORKSHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option A: One unitary council covering the whole of North Yorkshire

Sedgefield District

Teesdale District Redcar and Cleveland Darlington Middlesbrough Eden District ) (M Whitby 1 A

Richmond One unitary covering the whole of North Yorkshire Northallerton th Lakeland A 1 Scarborough ( Dis tr ict T ) Thirsk Filey T) 4( A6 Ripon Malton

1 A 6 6 8

5 ( (T T ) Harrogate ) Skipton York Ribble Valley Dis tr ict East Riding of Yorkshire Pendle District Br adfor d Dis tr ict

Leeds District Selby Bur nle y Dis tr ict City of Kingston upon Hull

Calderdale District M62 kburn with Darwen Wakefield District Kirklees District Bur y Dis tr ict North Lincolnshire Doncaster District Oldham District North East Lincolnshire n District BlDitit

Area: The whole of the existing County Council area: Population 569,700

Services: Would deliver all local authority services to local residents in the county, currently provided by the seven district councils and the county council.

Community Representation: Would represent the interests of all communities within North Yorkshire, and take into account the needs of local people throughout the county.

Estimated costs of ‘being in business’: Are predicted to be around £9.9 million per year (currently £19.6 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.

North Yorkshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes. J20362/1 NORTH YORKSHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option B

Sedgefield District

Teesdale District Redcar and Cleveland Darlington Middlesbrough Ed e n Dis t r ict ) (M 1 Whitby A Ryedale and Scarborough Richmond Districts combined Richmondshire and Hambleton Northallerton A Districts combined 1 Scarborough ( T ) Thirsk File y T) 4( A6 Craven and Harrogate Ripon Malton A Bridlington strict Districts combined 1 A 6 6 8

5 ( ( T T Driffield ) Harrogate ) York Skipton East Riding of Yorkshire and Selby ibble Valley District Districts combined Pendle District Beverley Br adfor d Dis tr ict Leeds District Selby Bur nle y Dis tr ict City of Kingston upon Hull

Calderdale District M62 kburn with Darwen Goole Wakefield District

Bolton District Kirklees District North Lincolnshire Oldham District North East Lincolnshire Doncaster District BlDitit A: Craven and Harrogate Districts combined: Population 205,000 B: Hambleton and Richmondshire Districts combined: Population 131,100 C: Ryedale and Scarborough Districts combined: Population 157,100 D: Selby and East Riding of Yorkshire Districts combined: Population 390,600 Services: The four councils would each have responsibility for delivering most local authority services in their area. 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 North Yorkshire Police Authority would continue to serve the county. Humberside Fire and Police Authorities would be amended to reflect an enlarged East Riding of Yorkshire. Community Representation: Would represent the interests of all communities within North Yorkshire, and take into account the needs of local people throughout the county. Estimated costs of ‘being in business’: Are predicted to be around £15.6 million per year (currently £19.6 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. North Yorkshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes. J20362/1 NORTH YORKSHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option C

Sedgefield District

Teesdale District Redcar and Cleveland Darlington Middlesbrough Eden District ) (M 1 Whitby A Richmondshire, Hambleton, Ryedale Richmond and Scarborough Districts combined Northallerton A 1 Scarborough ( strict T ) Thirsk Filey T) 4( A6 Craven and Harrogate Ripon Malton A Bridlington strict Districts combined 1 A 6 6 8

5 ( (T T Driffield ) Harrogate ) York Skipton East Riding of Yorkshire and Selby ibble Valley District Districts combined Pendle District Beverley Br adfor d Dis tr ict Leeds District Selby Burnley District City of Kingston upon Hull

Calderdale District M62 kburn with Darwen Goole Wakefield District

Bolton District Kirklees District North Lincolnshire Doncaster District Oldham District North East Lincolnshire BlDitit

A: Craven and Harrogate Districts combined: Population 205,000 B: Hambleton, Richmondshire, Ryedale and Scarborough Districts combined: Population 288,200 C: Selby and East Riding of Yorkshire Districts combined: Population 390,600 Services: The three councils would each have responsibility for delivering most local authority services in their area. 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 North Yorkshire Police Authority would continue to serve the county. Humberside Fire and Police Authorities would be amended to reflect an enlarged East Riding of Yorkshire. Community Representation: Would represent the interests of all communities within North Yorkshire, and take into account the needs of local people throughout the county. Estimated costs of ‘being in business’: Are predicted to be around £13 million per year (currently £19.6 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. North Yorkshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes. J20362/1 NORTH YORKSHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option D

Sedgefield District

Teesdale District Redcar and Cleveland Darlington Middlesbrough Eden District ) (M 1 Whitby A Hambleton, Ryedale and Richmond Scarborough Districts combined Northallerton A 1 Scarborough ( strict T ) Thirsk Craven, Richmondshire and File y T) 4( Harrogate Districts combined A6 Malton

A Bridlington strict 1 A 6 6 8

5 ( (T T Driffield ) Harrogate ) York Skipton East Riding of Yorkshire and Selby ibble Valley District Districts combined Pendle District Beverley Br adfor d Dis tr ict Leeds District Bur nle y Dis tr ict Selby City of Kingston upon Hull

Calderdale District M62 kburn with Darwen Goole Wakefield District

Bolton District Kirklees District North Lincolnshire Doncaster District Oldham District North East Lincolnshire BlDitit A Hambleton, Ryedale and Scarborough Districts combined: Population: 241,200

B Craven, Harrogate and Richmondshire Districts combined: Population: 252,000

C Selby and East Riding of Yorkshire Districts combined: Population 390,600

Services: The three councils would each have responsibility for delivering most local authority services in their area.

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 North Yorkshire Police Authority would continue to serve the county. Humberside Fire and Police Authorities would be amended to reflect an enlarged East Riding of Yorkshire.

Community Representation: Would represent the interests of all communities within North Yorkshire, and take into account the needs of local people throughout the county.

Estimated costs of ‘being in business’: Are predicted to be around £13 million per year (currently £19.6 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.

North Yorkshire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes.

Appendix 2 - Research Methodology Overview

Quantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents think, by measuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions.

In MORI’s main research, in the forty-four two-tier districts in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. In addition, in the seven districts – including Selby - 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 Selby, North Yorkshire. As part of the main research, 313 interviews took place across the district. MORI undertook additional interviews in two areas in the north of the district. In Tadcaster (the District Council wards of Tadcaster East and Tadcaster West), the total interviewed in that area was 210 (including both the main research and the additional interviews). In north-east Selby (the District Council wards of Appleton Roebuck, Riccall with Escrick and North Duffield) a total of 207 interviews took place. The total interviewed in Tadcaster and north- east Selby include the relatively small number of interviews which 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 and, in a district like Selby, to take into account the larger number of interviews conducted in Tadcaster and north-east Selby. 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 Selby, 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.

63 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

2,225 (e.g. total number of interviews in North Yorkshire) 1 1 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

64 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 – Definitions of 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