Figure 5.7 – Health (Doctors) Draws
28.2 %
37.7 %
12.2 %
9.6 % Figure 5.8 – Health (Dentists) Draws
36.7 %
19.2 % 13.5 %
7.6 % Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
5.9 Education
5.9.1 Figure 5.9 details the usage of various types of educational facility within the study area. This shows that there is a relatively high usage of adult education classes by householders.
800
Yes 700 No
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Playgroup Day care Pre-school Nursery Primary Secondary College University Adult school school education classes
Figure 5.9: Use of Educational Facilities
5.9.2 Figure 5.10, overleaf, shows the main education movement within the study area.
5.9.3 In terms of adult education classes, when asked where they go to access these facilities, the biggest draws are Ashbourne (38.3%), Derby (14.8%) and Mickleover (12.5%).
5.9.4 Indeed, 20% of households noted that they would be interested in taking part in a further education course (whether in an academic subject or training in a new skill), rising to 23% if such courses were available online and rising to 54% if such courses were available in their own village.
5.9.5 Of all the households responding to the survey, only 5 reported that members of their household aged 16 – 21 were not in education due to transport problems.
5.9.6 To access education facilities and services, 81% reported using their car; with the key reasons being that their destination was too far to walk (33%), there was no bus service (33%) or that they preferred to use their own car (30%).
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 67 Figure 5.10 – Education Draws
22.3 %
3.2 %
14.2 % To Derby 6.2 % Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
5.10 Accessing Leisure and Social Facilities
5.10.1 Leisure Facilities: Services under the category of ‘leisure’ in the questionnaire included sports centres (with and without swimming facilities) gym, sports pitch, park, cinema, theatre, play area and playing fields. The usage of these facilities is shown in Figure 5.11.
700 Yes No 600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Sports Sports Gym Sports Park Cinema Theatre Formal Playing centre with centre pitch play area fields swimming without swimming
Figure 5.11: Use of Leisure Facilities
5.10.2 As can be seen from Figure 5.11, the most used frequented services include the cinema, the sports centre with swimming facilities, the theatre and the park. The least used facility is the sports pitch.
5.10.3 It was found that the most popular usual mode of travel to such facilities as a whole is the car, representing 91% of travel mode choice. 32% of those choosing the car to access leisure facilities do so due to there being both no bus service and inappropriate walking distances. 28% also use the car due to personal preference.
5.10.4 However, taken as a whole, the majority of respondents (53%) stated that they do not use such leisure facilities, 24% stated that they make use of them only infrequently and 10% monthly. The most regularly used facility is the sports centre (with Swimming).
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 68 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
5.10.5 Social Facilities: Services under the category of ‘social’ in the questionnaire include the pub, social club, community centre, religious centre, village hall, welfare centre and day care centre. The usage of these facilities is shown in Figure 5.12.
800 Yes No 700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Pub Social club Community centre Religious centre Village hall Welfare centre Day care centre
Figure 5.12: Use of Social Facilities
5.10.6 The most used social facility is the pub, followed by the village hall and religious centre.
5.10.7 Taken as a whole, 39% of people choose to walk to these facilities. However, for the pub this rises to 40% of trips and 52% for the village hall.
* * *
5.10.8 Space was provided at the end of the household questionnaire for any other comments people may wish to make.
5.10.9 One of the key messages from the comments was that people living within the study area are car reliant. This may either be out of preference or because there was no perceived alternative. Fears were raised concerning losing the ability to drive and the consequences this would have.
5.10.10 A large number of responses related to bus services. Of these, most explained that the bus service was poor, inadequate, infrequent, expensive or inaccessible with complaints that a service had been removed to some settlements. Many settlements voiced the opinion that they were isolated from bus services and walking to them was unviable, especially if no bus shelter was provided at the bus stop.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 69 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
5.10.11 There were also a range of service requests to be provided including
¾ Restore bus to Manchester on A52,
¾ Cheaper and more frequent bus form Kirk Langley to Derby,
¾ Evening bus from Derby to Ashbourne,
¾ Evening buses in general,
¾ Improved reliability,
¾ Buses with space for bicycles,
¾ Kirk Langley should be considered as in Derbyshire Dales for bus services,
¾ Need link to Ashbourne, Derby, and Uttoxeter from all villages,
¾ In particular, Cubley, Shirley Longford and Long Lane were mentioned as desiring bus services,
¾ A regular community bus service.
5.10.12 Amongst the comments some people commented that they chose not to walk as the rural roads are seen as unsafe.
5.10.13 Conversely, however, an opinion was raised that the rural nature of the area should not be “disturbed” as many people choose the secluded lifestyle.
* * *
5.10.14 A copy of the questionnaire used, and further summary tables and graphs of the questionnaire data is given within Appendix C.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 70 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Summary of Key Issues
The questionnaire was delivered to all households within the study area, and was responded to by a statistically significant sample of the population. Information was received from all of the key settlements within the study area,
The questionnaire identified that there was a relatively older population living in the study area than the UK average, with more people noted to be retired. There were less full-time employed people within the study area than UK average, but relatively little unemployment,
Few people identified transport problems as being a barrier to obtaining employment, or in accessing services and facilities. However, those households that did report problems were spread across the study area,
Car ownership within the study area exceeds national averages, and car usage (for all trip purpose types) is high,
Though there were few facilities within the study area itself, there appeared to be evidence of usage of independent food deliveries (though not by internet) across the study area,
The “free-hand” comments received back from the questionnaire focused on the lack of traditional bus services,
There is some evidence of connection activity between CT and rail users.
Key destinations for all trip purposes were found to be Derby, Ashbourne, Mickleover and Uttoxeter. However, there is greater variation for health-related facilities. Ashbourne has greater prominence than was identified within Section 2 (which identified the locations of facilities) or 4 (the Community Workshops).
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 71 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
6 Functional Relationships, Barriers and the Future
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 The preceding sections have presented evidence of the;
¾ services and facilities to which people may wish to travel,
¾ current transport services available to facilitate that travel, and,
¾ people’s current travel patterns and desires,
6.1.2 The purpose of this section is to draw together the key summary points from the preceding sections to establish the key issues and problems, prior to exploring the mechanisms through which improvements for those experiencing problems could be sought.
6.2 Functional Relationships between Settlements
6.2.1 From the maps of community facilities, it is clear that there remain few draws that would generate travel within the study area itself. This was confirmed both within the community workshops and from the questionnaire results. Either villages are self-contained (i.e. people work from home, or stay at home) or they travel from the study area to the peripheral, larger available settlements; mainly by private car.
6.2.2 This confirms the view that the rural character of the area (and its related accessibility problems) is one of sparse development rather than isolation. A three-tier structure is evident in terms of the peripheral settlement draws.
Tier 1: Derby is a clear draw for both employment, health, education and main shopping (food and non-food) trips. This is consistent with its size and relative proximity to the study area. Ashbourne can also be viewed as an important draw across the whole of the study area (which contrasts with its relative size compared with Derby).
Tier 2: Uttoxeter forms a secondary draw; (and could be viewed as a challenge to Ashbourne in future years) with Burton important for non-food shopping trips.
Tier 3: At the lower level, there is evidence of trips made to and from Mickleover, Brailsford, Hatton and Hilton.
6.2.3 Importantly, the study area sits near to several borders; Derbyshire / Derby City / Staffordshire, and Derbyshire Dales, South Derbyshire District and Amber Valley District Councils. This is reflected in terms of the provision of services, though Community Transport services have
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 72 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
adopted a cross-border approach with Ashbourne CT running services to Uttoxeter and Derby as well as from the area into Ashbourne.
6.3 Barriers to Accessing Services and Facilities
6.3.1 People’s ability to access services and facilities can be viewed from two related perspectives;
¾ How do people travel to reach the services and facilities that they want to use,
¾ How do services and facilities make themselves available to people.
6.3.2 The first of these perspectives recognises that many people travel from their home to access services and facilities. The second reflects the fact that many services and facilities have some degree of mobility (either in terms of physical presence, or in terms of product delivery).
6.3.3 Linking these viewpoints is the important consideration that people must know of services / facilities, or a method of accessing them, before they will be able to make use of them.
6.3.4 From the Community Workshops and questionnaires, it can be seen that the provision of information within the study area is not fully effective. This is particularly true with regards to service and facilities that deliver products within the area (which relies mainly on word of mouth) and Community Transport (where there was some confusion with regards to eligibility and availability of the service).
6.3.5 For those travelling to services, the private car accommodates the majority of trips across all journey purposes. This, accompanied by the evidence that few people report problems accessing services or jobs means that it is likely that accessibility issues for those living in the study area relate to specific individual households spread across the study area.
6.3.6 The above is likely to have driven the reduced demand (and therefore withdrawal) of traditional bus services; which has the effect of worsening accessibility for those households without access to a car. It also means that the re-introduction of traditional, fixed route services are unlikely to lead to significant benefits as they would only be able to serve a small proportion of the affected population (i.e. dispersed households for which accessibility to services and facilities are a problem).
6.3.7 The above can also be seen in the questionnaire responses with respect to the interventions that could be made to reduce car use; with bus frequency cited as being a key driver of change. However, when compared with the workshop responses to the same issue it is unlikely that increases in bus service frequency could be made to a level where it challenges the car for journey start convenience. Taken together, this could be viewed as a demand for transport flexibility rather than traditional service regularity.
6.3.8 Within the settlements themselves, it is noted that many of the villages have narrow roads with few footpaths, and that the settlements themselves are quite dispersed. Therefore walking (both in terms of the physical infrastructure on the ground and distance required to be covered) presents an obstacle to those wishing to access existing services and facilities.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 73 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Notwithstanding this, there is some potential within settlements to improve or introduce footways where desired.
6.4 The Future
6.4.1 Recent years have seen great fluctuations in the price of motoring. However, in general, the increase in the cost of motoring has been exceeded by the growth in the cost of using public transport and, as such, it is unlikely that the level of private motoring is likely to drop in the near to medium future. This means that the study area is likely to retain high car ownership.
6.4.2 Notwithstanding this, however, the resident’s questionnaire did identify that car usage and ownership falls away with age (as one might expect). In future therefore, the number of households without access to a car is likely to increase given that a high proportion of the study area falls in the “retired” or “nearly retired” category. This is likely to have impacts on those trips focused on accessing health, finance, shopping and leisure / social.
6.4.3 Alongside the above, it is noted that two key facilities are being developed on the periphery of the study area; Rocester School in Uttoxeter and an improved hospital in Ashbourne. Demand for transport to these locations is therefore likely to be enhanced in the near-term.
6.4.4 In addition, Government policy is increasingly leaning towards giving choice to those accessing publically provided services; particularly in education and in health, but also now in social care.
6.4.5 The combination of the above factors presents the greatest challenges to fixed-route, traditional bus services that run to a set timetable. For those without access to a private car therefore, the accessibility solution is likely to lie within the realm of similarly targeted interventions that are flexible both in terms of the destinations served and the times at which services run; Demand Responsive Transport (DRT).
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 74 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7 Options for Improved Accessibility
7.1 Scheme Framework
7.1.1 The preceding section identified the functional relationships operating within the study area, and the perceived barriers hindering access to services and facilities currently. Options to improve access to such services and facilities are explored in this Section; within the overall framework described in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: Scheme Option Framework
7.2 Potential Schemes Lessons from Government Initiatives
7.2.1 As noted in Section 1, the improvement of rural accessibility has received increased attention from Central Government since the publication of the Rural Strategy in 2004. In addition, specific non-governmental organisations have also pursued strategies to improve rural accessibility, locally.
7.2.2 Initiatives have been led by agencies such as DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government, IDeA (Improvement and Development Agency), the Campaign for Rural England (CRE), and The Countryside Agency and ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England); the umbrella organisation for Rural Community Councils.
7.2.3 In 2000, The Beacon Scheme was created by I&DEA (Improvement and Development Agency) and DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) to encourage excellence in service delivery in local authorities by highlighting and disseminating best practice.
7.2.4 Themes (such as Housing Improvements, Services for the Elderly, and Improving Accessibility) were selected annually by an independent panel where there was a need and potential for improving services that influence the quality of life for individuals and communities.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 75 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.5 Some of the more promising schemes resulting from The Beacon Scheme are described, below.
7.2.6 In March 2005, the Rural Delivery Pathfinder programme was launched jointly by DEFRA and local government organisations. The aim of the project was to look at innovation in rural service delivery, test opportunities for more joined up approaches to rural delivery and local priority setting.
7.2.7 Eight Pathfinder areas were selected including:
¾ North West : Lancashire (lead Council: Lancashire County Council) ¾ North East : West Durham (lead Council: Durham County Council) ¾ Yorks and Humber : Humber sub-region (covering East Riding of Yorkshire Council, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire) (lead Council: East Riding of Yorkshire Council) ¾ West Midlands : Shropshire (lead Council: Shropshire County Council) ¾ East Midlands : Peak District Rural Action Zone (covering the Derbyshire ¾ High Peak and Dales, Staffordshire Moorlands and East Staffordshire areas of the Peak District National Park) (lead Council: Derbyshire Dales District Council) ¾ South West : Dorset (lead Council: Dorset County Council) ¾ South East : Hampshire (lead Council: Hampshire County Council) ¾ East : Fens area of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Peterborough (lead Council: joint between Cambridgeshire County Council and Norfolk County Council)
7.2.8 Outputs from these schemes are discussed in the options identified in the remainder of this section.
Promoting Knowledge of Options
7.2.9 Barriers to accessing particular services and facilities exist where information is absent or not fully exploited. The level of awareness a community has regarding options to access services and facilities depends on the availability and quality of the information it receives. In the study area, for example, a number of communities have limited knowledge of Community Transport options as information had not been fully imparted or taken on board.
7.2.10 This section suggests possible options to improve local knowledge based on successful schemes from elsewhere in the UK. These schemes may help to address deficiencies in knowledge identified in the study area.
7.2.11 “Switch on Shropshire (SoS)” used a range of measures to provide information to people in rural locations. This was part of the West Midlands Pathfinder initiative. Individual scheme details given below:
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 76 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Rural Citizens Advice
- Known to be used by Shropshire County Cost: £5,500 for three locations Council, (six month pilot) - A trained Citizen Advisor would be
connected to village locations using secure
webcam technology. - Support for clients unfamiliar with Application to webcam technology was provided. Medium. - Volunteers were required at the host Study Area: sites.
Rural Customer First Points
- Known to be used by Shropshire County Cost: £5,200 for two villages Council (six month pilot) - A trained advisor would visit village halls
(on a regular but not frequent basis) to
offer information on council, public and community services. Application to - Other services providers, including the Medium. police and the fire and rescue service, can Study Area: also take part.
Community Broad Places
- Known to be used by Shropshire County Cost: £5,500 for three locations Council, (six month pilot) - Installation of a broadband facility and
computers in local venues known as
‘Broadplaces’.
Application to Study Area: Medium.
7.2.12 Each of these three initiatives provides information where current knowledge may be limited. By using technology to access communities (for Rural Citizens Advice and Community Broad Places), the need for the permanent presence of advisors is avoided. Venues such as village halls or pubs may be used, if available.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 77 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
* * *
7.2.13 The Peak District Pathfinder study also aimed to increase knowledge of existing options, with the specific aim to ‘encourage enterprise amongst rural business and communities‘ in rural areas. To improve information provision, a website (www.peakdirection.co.uk) was set up as a one stop repository for information.
* * *
Derbyshire Dales CVS - Community Enterprise – Making it Happen
Cost: £3,502 grant - Known to be used in Derbyshire (Pathfinder Initiative) - Two linked events, aimed at voluntary and community organisations in the Peak District looking to develop their potential to earn income from their activities and become less Application to Medium, but reliant on grant aid and donations. Study Area: community enterprises - Also aimed at people who have plans to set are not top-down up community enterprises, but have yet to initiatives take the first steps.
Derbyshire Dales CVS - Community Enterprise – Making it Happen
Cost: £5,000 grant Known to be used in Derbyshire (Pathfinder Initiative),
The Gateway Project - Feasibility Study for Mini-Mill idea: This project undertook a feasibility study to determine whether a Application to Study Medium, but Area: community wool mini-mill facility and local wool publicity enterprises are brand would be financially viable, as well as not top-down look at how the environmental and planning initiatives considerations would determine its implementation. The Mini Mill is aimed at producing wool materials to local creative industry businesses using local resources.
This project has now completed the study and is now looking at launching a Peak District Wool Brand to encourage greater buy-in to locally sourced wool products.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 78 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.14 The above schemes are useful in areas where commercial vendors have either vacated, or not located, within an area, but there is demand for small-scale services. However, it relies on individuals making a commercial commitment that is facilitated (but not led) by the local authority.
7.2.15 Further to this there is another Pathfinder scheme aimed at increasing rural knowledge:
Parish Toolkit
Cost: £22,500 to develop. - Known to be used in Hampshire Now published. (Hampshire Rural Pathfinder) , - A series of inter-linked projects on community planning - An example is the development of a Parish Plan Toolkit (now being piloted nationally by Application to Medium – enables ACRE), Study Area: communities to take - Based on good practice from across the more control of the country, the toolkit provides a consistent and decision making robust model for preparing a Parish Plan, process, and seeks to meeting the needs of the community and actively involve statutory sectors. people.
7.2.16 With respect to the above, the Parish Plan Toolkit acts as a process for embedding rural service delivery, including community delivery of services into the LAA process, through Local Strategic Partnership and Sustainable Community Strategies. It provides:
• consistent support to communities throughout the parish planning process; • a process for increasing community awareness and involvement in local democratic processes, and stronger relationships between communities and elected members; • a process which can be adapted and improved to reflect emerging good practice, changing needs and government policy.
7.2.17 ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England) have also participated in a number of schemes to improve rural knowledge via the Rural Community Council Network
7.2.18 In Somerset the Community Council (CCS) developed the idea of using a theatre group to get information to some of its deepest rural areas.
7.2.19 CCS staff contacted local SureStart teams and the Bristol-based company Travelling Light to put on a production aimed at 3-6 year olds, which was preceded by a workshop for some of the participants.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 79 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Community Theatre
The objective of using a theatre Cost: Sure Start paid for venue production in a rural setting was to hire, transport, a crèche and entertain both children and adults refreshments. CCS funded whilst providing information. the performance and Information was also given out information. including leaflets about tax credits, domestic violence, homelessness, local support groups, SureStart, CCS
and where to seek advice on a range Application to of other issues. Study Area: Low
7.2.20 Cheshire Community Council (CCC) is tackling social exclusion by borrowing a French idea of encouraging reading amongst people who normally wouldn’t open a book. Residents initiated the scheme which persuaded a major publishing house to provide more than a hundred books that everyone in the community is encouraged to read and comment on.
7.2.21 Many people in the community can’t get to the nearest library, so the books are left in the local surgery or hairdressers from where they can be borrowed, read and returned for the next person.
Sharing Books in Cheshire – Waverton Good Read
- The French scheme was initiated by a Cost: UNKNOWN local GP who saw it as a way of stimulating people and taking their minds
off minor illnesses, and promote general
well-being. In Waverton the scheme has attracted 104 participants out of a population of 2062. Application to Low, most communities - A neighbouring village has already Study Area: are covered by mobile expressed an interest in launching its own libraries Good Read project.
7.2.22 In terms of providing information to people about transport options, traditionally this is achieved through the publication of bus-timetables (either in leaflet form or online) or specific information about individual services. However, there are increasingly schemes in which information is directed specifically at individuals. This is known as Personalised Travel Planning.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 80 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
People to Services
7.2.23 In many cases, limited transport options restrict access to services and facilities from rural locations. This creates a barrier to people as poor transport options reduces opportunities.
7.2.24 Below are given a number of schemes in operation across the UK which aim to take people to services.
7.2.25 As noted in Section 3, a Wheels to Work scheme has been running in Derbyshire for a number of years. This scheme enables individuals to get to work or education which they would otherwise struggle to get to. The scheme currently receives £252,294 from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and £75,992 from other agencies; and loans scooters to the young or long- term unemployed to give them access to work or training they couldn't previously attend due to lack of transport.
7.2.26 Similar schemes operate around the country as detailed below.
Bridport Scooter Scheme
- Known to be used in Dorset Cost: £12,100 a year plus - Provision of scooters to disadvantaged young Countryside agency people in rural areas, particularly to enable funding of £32,700 in access to education year 1 and £29,996 in - Enables isolated students to access education year 2 and jobs without reliance on family or car
Application to High – enables Study Area: targeting of specific households with accessibility issues.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 81 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
North Lincolnshire Travel to Work and Learning (Wheels 4U)
Cost: £175,000 over three years. - Known to be used in Lincolnshire £121,000 from the Countryside - Offers an information, advice and Agency, £9000 from Connexions. clearing brokerage service for people North Lincolnshire Council facing difficulty travelling to work, training supplied 10 scooters and fleet or education. Following initial insurance. Further support from assessment of the individual’s travel the Learning and Skills Council, difficulties, the most suitable transport Connexions, Jobcentre Plus and
options are sought. If no appropriate the Prince’s Trust. public transport services exist, the project can offer a scooter loan scheme. Enables isolated persons to access education and jobs without reliance on Application to High – enables targeting of family or car. Study Area: specific households with accessibility issues
7.2.27 Chapter 3 identified that the provision of bus services within the study area is poor, resulting in a dependence on private transport. A number of initiatives set out below may help to improve public transport in the area.
7.2.28 Bus services may be improved by providing linking services to main bus routes. For example, the Lincolnshire Interconnect service provides access to seven core inter-urban routes via sixteen feeder services from rural settlements. This may be appropriate to connect to services on the A52 and A50 to improve access to known desired destination such as Derby, Ashbourne, Uttoxeter and Burton on Trent. This would also help people to access the hinterland of local centres such as Brailsford, Hilton and Etwall. However, it should be noted that the Lincolnshire scheme covered a much larger area. Further information is as follows:
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 82 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Lincolnshire InterConnect Feeder Services
- Known to be used in Cost: £5M of Rural Bus Challenge moneys, £1.2M Lincolnshire of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, over £6M of - Feeder bus routes in Lincolnshire’s own funds. In addition there rural areas linking into has been some Countryside Agency funding core InterConnect routes of £46,000 with matching Rural Bus Subsidy around Lincolnshire. Grant and European Objective 5b funding - This service would link for “non mobile infrastructures” such as people to main bus routes improvements to stops and shelters and benefiting them as well as timetable information. The procurement cost service providers.. of the current network, which is almost entirely required for the feeder services, is between £1.2m and £2M per annum. Three million pounds of capital funding has also been given to the key core route operators in the form of Section 106 grants (Transport Act 1985) to help them replace the buses used on the services with low floor vehicles. Grants of around 30 per cent of the cost of new vehicles are made
Application to Low – high car ownership within the area Study Area: means that expensive new PT schemes are unlikely to be cost effective.
7.2.29 Further options for bus services could be:
¾ A set route that can be deviated from via pre booking.
¾ A set route that can be deviated from at the driver’s discretion. Examples of such schemes are as follows:
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 83 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
The Wymondham Flexibus
- Known to be used in Cost: Funding for the service has come from a Norfolk, Rural Bus Challenge bid, the Rural - Providing access to Transport Partnership, South Norfolk Wymondham from the rural Council, Parish Councils and Norfolk hinterland as well as aiding County Council. For 2003-04, 71 per cent of school journeys, the total expenditure was met by the - This is a flexible ‘dial-a-ride’ Countryside Agency. scheme which aims to cater Cost Cost Income Passengers Cost/passenger for users at any time of day, 2001 £45,624 £2,190 1,249 £34.78 2002 £48,817 £5,716 2,514 £17.14 2003 £44,888 £9,234 4,616 £7.72
Application to High – Flexibility corresponds to expressed Study Area: preferences and could serve specific isolated households.
Ledbury / Malvern Service 675
- Known to be used in Worcestershire / Cost: £475 per week Herefordshire - Evening service on Fridays and Saturdays
throughout the year. Aimed and young people
with limited transport options in the evening. - People in the Study Area are known to have limited transport options in the evening. Application to High – Flexibility Study Area: corresponds to expressed preferences and could serve specific isolated households.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 84 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Cango bus service
Know to be used in Hampshire Cost: Funding for the service has come from a Rural Bus Challenge bid. This was Responsive bus service that can £736,000 in 2003 deviate from ‘timed’ stop points to Members = 4500 pick up passengers within its area of operation.
Apart from the fixed pick-up points, Application High – Flexibility corresponds to stops must be booked in advance. to Study expressed preferences and could Area: serve specific isolated households. Buses are accessible
49 Link Craven Arms
- Known to be used in Shropshire Cost: - Bus service to the town of Craven Arms £30,336.92 per year from the surrounding hinterland providing weekday trip to facilities in the town. Operates five different set routes Monday to Friday, five times a day.
Application to Study Area: Low – lacking flexibility
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 85 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.30 Access to Health: Outlined below are a number of initiatives, specifically related to accessing health care, that have been trialled in the UK. The high number of schemes available indicates that access to healthcare is a major challenge in rural areas, particularly for elderly or disabled persons.
Weardale Local Links (pathfinder project)
- Known to be used in County Durham Cost: The nursery taxibus scheme - Provides transport to nursery and health received a grant award of services in a predominantly rural area £11,250 or 75 per cent for using a mixture of taxi, bus and volunteer Year 1 (Jan 2003-Mar transport. 2004), and £8,038 or 65 per - Enables children to get to education and cent for Year 2 (Apr 2004- related activities whilst allowing parents to Mar 2005). This funding was get to work. Also reduces car dependence. broken down between the bus contract, nursery escort and information.
Application to Study Area: Medium
Transport Action Patients (TAP)
- Know to be used in Cornwall Cost: - Voluntary Service to aid patient travel to healthcare appointments RTP Journeys Year Total Cost Cost per journey and transport for social services grant Made clients. Co-ordination of many (grant aid per
separate voluntary organisations. journey) - Improvement in hospital 2002/2003 £47,865.34 £26,321 £3,531 £13.55 (7.45) attendance were seen. Simple 2003/2004 £42,919.00 £26,000 £8,155 £5.26 (3.19) single telephone number for TOTAL £84,584.34 £52,321 £11,686 £7.24 (4.48) hospital journeys to co-ordinate a number of existing services.
Application to Study Area: Medium
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 86 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Denton Surgery Bus
- Known to be used in Northamptonshire Cost: £35,940 for three years. - A minibus service run by Denton Village Revenue £2000 per year Surgery (NHS Primary Care Practice) on
regular routes between villages and the
surgery - Takes people to medical appointments Application to where no other transport option is available Medium Study Area:
Newark and Sherwood Voluntary Transport Scheme
- Known to be used in Cost: The scheme’s main source of funding Nottinghamshire, is the SLA contract with the local PCT - A voluntary car scheme offering (currently worth £42,000 per year, transport to a range of healthcare this increases by inflation providers, including hospitals, GP annually).The Countryside Agency surgeries, dentists, opticians and provided £5,000 over two-and-a-half other health-related services. years. Charges are set on the basis - Provides access to healthcare for of roughly 20p per mile to those without transport passengers.
Application to Study Area: Medium
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 87 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Links for Life Service 39 (Bridgenorth)
- Known to be used in Cost: Shropshire, - Extra bus services run in the Countryside Agency SCC in Kind School Total morning for commuters, College Feb to Dec 01 £7000 £250 £7250 Students and Hospital Visits, Jan to Dec 02 £11625 £2385 £760 £14770 and also a late afternoon service Jan to Dec 03 £11625 £2385 £760 £14770 for after school activities, Jan to Mar 04 £5726 £628 £520 £6874 - Provides a link to key facilities for people with limited transport options.
Application to Study Area: Medium
North Walsham Area Community Transport Scheme (NWACTA)
- Known to be used in Norfolk, Cost: Grant aided (varies) - Service to healthcare from volunteer ‘dial-a- ride’ and a hospital bus. Operates Monday to Friday covering isolated communities. ,This is a transport option for health services Application to High – Flexibility Study Area: corresponds to expressed preferences and could serve specific isolated households.
The Link-a-Ride/Social Services Partnership
- Known to be used in Bedfordshire, Cost: - Provides a door-to-door service for persons with temporary or permanent Funder Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total mobility problems. Takes people to the Countryside Agency £8,622 £8,972 £9,330 £26,924 Lloyds/TSB £1,397 £1,397 £1,397 £4,191 Ampthill Social Centre for day care, Bedfordshire County - Mid Beds District Council contributed £5,458 £ 5,458 £5,458 £16,374 £20,000 for purchase of a vehicle for Council Link-a-Ride, Total £15,477 £15,827 £16,185 £47,489 - Care for the isolated people and social interaction. Application to Study High – Flexibility corresponds to Area: expressed preferences and could serve specific isolated households.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 88 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
The 3CT Scheme
- Known to be used in Suffolk, Cost: Cambridgeshire and Essex. Funder Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 - Provide a cross border transport Countryside Agency Capital £46,113 option to rural communities. Revenue £27,160 £ 9,416 £3,507 - Draws on a wide resource base to improve availability. Cambridgeshire County Council £ 3,000 £ 1,500 £1,500 Essex County Council £ 3,000 £ 1,500 £1,500 - Joint venture between councils to pool resources and tackle Suffolk County Council £10,000 £ 5,000 £5,000 accessibility problems in a Braintree District Council £ 3,000 £ 1,500 £1,500 coordinated fashion. This South Cambridgeshire District approach could be applied to the Council £ 3,000 £ 1,500 £1,500 RAZ. St Edmunsbury Borough Council £ 5,000 £ 5,000 £5,000
Application to Study Area: Medium
7.2.31 Similar to bus-based CT or demand responsive schemes is the Taxi-bus concept. The official definition takes the basic principle of operating as a bus under a taxi licence. Other variations of taxi-buses include a Polybus, which is a hybrid between car and bus.
7.2.32 It is understood that funding from the Rural Bus Challenge for Taxi-buses has been sourced by a number of authorities, including Oxfordshire, (4), Peterborough, Leicestershire and Herefordshire.
7.2.33 A further successful initiative is that of a rural car club.
7.2.34 A car club is a pool of cars for the use of local people. Members of the club can hire the vehicles, as and when they need, from an hour to a weekend, or longer. It gives members the flexibility of using a car for private or business journeys, without the costs or worry of owning or maintaining one.
7.2.35 Such a scheme is particularly relevant to people in a community who:
¾ only use a car occasionally and perhaps cannot justify the expense of owning one; ¾ are thinking about getting a second car or giving up a second car but are concerned about making certain journeys; ¾ find a lift sharing scheme, that is dependent on others, not suitable,
7.2.36 Each car club either owns or leases cars that are then made available to their local community for short-term use. The club covers the cost of the insurance, tax and servicing of the vehicles. Members usually pay an annual fee to join the club and then pay per hour to hire a vehicle, when required. There is also a mileage charge, but fuel is included in the cost of the hire. Bookings are made via the Internet or over the telephone.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 89 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.37 Car club vehicles are usually stationed at convenient or highly visible locations within easy reach of a large section of the community and are accessed via key safes or individual smart cards.
7.2.38 A variant of this scheme is the creation of a social car scheme, in which both a vehicle and a driver can be “booked” from a pool of volunteers. This is more useful in areas where people do not drive (or have given-up driving) due to physical impairment rather than cost. An example of a successful social car scheme is given below:
The Thirsk Social Car Scheme
- Known to be used in North Yorkshire, Cost: - Has run for ten years. The scheme relies on volunteers who give their time and use their Year 1 own cars to provide lifts to people across Coordinator £23,857 Thirsk, Office management and other costs £5,261 - The car scheme offers a personal door-to- Volunteers time £4,570 door service for people who are unable to use £33,688 public transport, Funders:
- The regular drivers usually help people to and Countryside Agency Rural Transport from the car and give a hand with shopping or Partnership £25,898 luggage, Hambledon District Council £2,000 Volunteer in kind £4,570 The scheme and the coordinator’s post are Thirsk CCA £2,570 managed by Thirsk, Sowerby & District £35,038 Community Care Association (TSDCCA).
Application to Study Medium – Such services Area: already exist in the study area, but rely on volunteers time.
7.2.39 In order for people to access services, physical measures may be required. In particular requests have been made from communities in the study area relating to the instalment of infrastructure to aid access.
7.2.40 Residents of Longford cited the need for a footway between the main village and the Ostrich public house. The current main road route has a 60mph limit, has no footway and is a safety concern for local residents. Improving access to the pub would allow residents more social opportunity and allow the children of the village to access the playing fields adjacent to the pub.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 90 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Pub Village
Figure: 7.2 lack of footway access from village to pub
7.2.41 In Marston Montgomery there was some concern relating to a lack of footpaths in the village. Specifically there is a need to improve footpath access to the village primary school.
Figure: 7.3 lack of footway access to primary school
7.2.42 These issues could be addressed either via specific footpath schemes, or via the creation of Greenways and the clearer identification of village boundaries (i.e. rural speed management initiatives).
7.2.43 Precedents for such a scheme would be the TRL scheme known as Bird Lane in Brentwood, Essex, which is an unlit country lane, about 900m long. Before the implementation of a traffic calming scheme in 2002, the lane was subject to the national speed limit and was heavily used as a rat-run. The lane was between 4 and 5m wide, with no footway. A traffic calming scheme was introduced which involved narrowing part of Bird Lane to a 3m single track road with passing places which allowed the addition of a 'footway' (raised area bounded by a kerb intended for shared use by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders) between passing places. The cost of this scheme was described as being £90,000.
7.2.44 Other rural traffic calming initiatives include the provision of more formal gateways, and the removal of white lining and other road signs; although this latter initiative is currently the subject of before and after monitoring studies.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 91 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Services to people
7.2.45 In some cases, getting services to people can be a more appropriate answer than creating the need to travel. A number of ‘outreach’ initiatives operating in the UK are shown below.
7.2.46 Pub is the Hub advises and helps rural pubs, owners, licensees and communities to support their local communities by using pubs for the co-location of necessary services and specialist local needs.
7.2.47 Pub is the Hub is an ‘Independent Advisory Trust’ assisted through the affiliation and support of the rural action team of Business in the Community, together with the Post Office, the pub and drinks industries and other development agencies, county councils surveyors and suppliers interested in using pub and other rural properties for the support and access to social enterprise services.
7.2.48 The main driver of Pub is the Hub has been to use non-traditional properties as “hubs”, (and use non-pub locations if the local pub has already have closed) and use the combined industry experience to advise on strategic initiatives.
7.2.49 As well as looking for innovative ways to ensure rural pubs remain relevant to the needs of their local communities, in some instances village communities acting as co-operatives have bought their own local pub to ensure it is retained as a centre of services for their local area.
7.2.50 Within the study area, two schemes have been implemented. These are summarised below:
Shoulder of Mutton Post Office, Osmaston
A pub, post office and shop provides Cost: £12,509.25 people with access to basic goods and (£3,127.32 applicant facilities, reducing the need to travel to contribution, £9,381.93 Ashbourne (a 6 mile round trip) EMDA)
Internet access is also provided for community meetings and training
sessions. Application to Medium – brings services
Study Area: into community, but individual Places the pub at the heart of the communities in the study community and provides some area are small. employment.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 92 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Black Cow Village Shop, Dalbury Lees
The nearest shop was in Kirk Langley, a Cost: £4,277 (£1,069.25 applicant 10 mile round trip by car. contribution, £3,207.75 Pub is the Hub Grant) Funding allowed expansion of a small scale shop into a larger entity, serving community needs.
Application to Medium – brings services As the shop sells local produce it also Study Area: into community, but individual helps other local businesses. communities in the study area are small.
* * *
7.2.51 In terms of financial institutions, NatWest Run a mobile bank in Cornwall aimed at providing a number of rural areas with direct access to face to face banking facilities.
7.2.52 The mobile bank runs five days a week to different communities in Cornwall. Scheduled routes and times are provided and these routes are reviewed regularly to reflect customer demand. Customers are able to carry out a range of personal banking services onboard including: cashing cheques, making account deposits, paying bills, checking balances, getting quotes for all major products, getting forms for opening accounts etc. There is also a phone system onboard which will give customers a direct line to main areas of the bank e.g. mortgage, credit cards, insurance.
7.2.53 The NatWest mobile bank builds on the the 13 well established mobile banks reaching areas of Scotland provided by The Royal Bank of Scotland - a service which has been running since 1946. The NatWest mobile bank has been custom made and as such is designed to be fully DDA compliant with excellent access for customers with disabilities. Facilities include a wheelchair lift and an audio induction loop, which will benefit those who use hearing aids. (ref website)
7.2.54 In Cornwall there was a perceived need by both the local authority and bank to provide this service, particularly as services had been removed previously. The route of the service was identified by looking at the existing banking provision and the needs of isolated communities. A final route was determined via negotiation.
* * *
7.2.55 Vital Villages is a scheme run by the Warwickshire and Worcestershire Rural Retail Partnership. Members of the scheme come from the public, private and voluntary sectors and offer individual expertise.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 93 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.56 The Scheme is funded by Advantage West Midlands through the Government's Single Regeneration Budget - a fund only open to broad-based partnerships working to revitalise key areas. The partners also contribute cash and in kind to the costs, and are involved directly in different aspects of managing and implementing the scheme.
7.2.57 Examples of schemes include:
Welland Mini-Library
This project is being implemented in partnership with Cost Unknown Worcestershire Library Services (WLS). 35 parishes had expressed interest in taking part in the pilot from which two were selected.
Applicatio Low – most Welland is the first pilot project to run. 800-1500 books n to Study settlements are have been placed in the village hall foyer and the Area: already covered by community are managing the project. Books can be mobile libraries returned to the hall, any library or the local village shop/PO.
Members from village hall user groups will also be librarian trained so club members can use the library when they are using the hall.
Elmley Castle
This project provides digital projection Cost Unknown equipment to allow the community and other groups to benefit from training, education and seminars through "Local
Networks". Through the local colleges, Application to they offer provision for courses in a Low – there are few local Study Area: neighbourhood setting. The new facilities centres within the study area. have encouraged its use by commercial groups as well as local clubs and organisations. It provides a service to 700 residents and there is no other facility of its kind in the area.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 94 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.58 The Village Retail Service Association (ViRSA) supports rural communities wanting to set up and run a community owned shop. They offer planning guidance through to the opening of a shop, and then ongoing support as required. Practical assistance is provided through a network of community retail advisers, a web site, a national office and various publications.
7.2.59 ViRSA promotes community ownership as a viable option for villages wishing to retain or introduce a local shop. Currently, there are around 150 community owned shops in England. This number is increasing as rural communities find that community ownership is often the only way to have a shop in the village.
7.2.60 ViRSA carries out research projects on community owned shops and the social and economic issues that affect them. This work is used to inform government and charities and enables us to provide the best quality advice to individual communities. ViRSA also provides expertise to government and other organisations on various rural retail projects.
7.2.61 ViRSA obtains its funds from grants, donations and subscriptions. There is no charge to individual communities for our advice and support.
7.2.62 Examples of supported projects include:
Litton Community Shop and Post Office, Derbyshire
Following the closure of Litton’s only shop, the post office Application to Study Area: was re-housed in the Village Hall, but the villagers were not Medium – brings services keen on the new arrangements. After some market into community, but individual research they found there was sufficient demand to sustain communities in the study a shop. A friendly society was former with each villager area are small. buying a ten-pound share. Premises were then obtained and converted into a shop, post office and meeting place for the community. The Litton Community Shop opened for business on 26 September 1999, mainly run by volunteers. It was a success and in 2003 it was expanded. A wide range of goods are sold at Supermarket prices and where possible locally produced products are stocked. A newspaper delivery service is operated and visitors can also have refreshments there.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 95 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Gartmore Village Shop and Post Office, Stirlingshire
In 1997 the one shop in the village was put on the market Application to Study Area: and was to be turned into a house. Concerned villagers Medium – brings services formed a committee it was decided to ask residents to buy into community, but individual shares in ‘Community Shop’. communities in the study area are small. Initial money was raised an the shop was eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund Leader II. This enabled the village to buy the shop.
It began trading as a Community Shop on 8th January 1998. Gartmore Community Shop is run by a full-time salaried manager and supported by a voluntary management committee of 8 members. The shop is a significant success and it is now making a profit that is reinvested in the community. The shareholders now receive a dividend in the form of vouchers which can be spent in the shop.
7.2.63 In 2007, consideration was given by three councils to save post offices threatened with closure.
7.2.64 Lewes District Council set aside a budget to pay rent and business rates for Landport post office in Lewes and the Claremont Road branch in Seaford. As a result the Post Office Ltd withdrew the branches from the at-risk list. Councillor De Vecchi said: "The county council should stump up the money for those post offices in the most deprived communities."
7.2.65 West Sussex County Council looked into whether new branches could be opened in its buildings such as libraries.
7.2.66 Essex County Council also revealed plans to spend up to £18,000 a year subsidising each of its 15 branches facing the axe. It hopes the £1.5 million investment over three years will lead to branches becoming self-sufficient.
7.2.67 As a result of the about interventions other councils considered their position on post offices.
7.2.68 A post office in Stroud was closed in August 2008 under the government's Network Change programme. The town council reopened the post office, becoming the first authority to intervene successfully to rescue a stand-alone post office, and the second to save any post office counter. Only Essex County Council has successfully intervened to save a post office counter from closure. However, Station Way Post Office in Essex, which reopened last month, was a counter as part of a larger convenience store. Uplands Post Office is in a rural settlement.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 96 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.69 Uplands Post Office will receive around £10,000 of Council assistance this year, and £25,000 in each of the next two years.
7.2.70 Within the study area, it is known that the Post Office at Marston Montgomery has recently been closed.
* * *
7.2.71 Several of the preceding schemes have been funded via Regional bodies, In the Study Area, the relevant body is the Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership (DDEP) which is one of seven Sub-regional Strategic Partnerships (SSPs) set up by the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA). The organisation is involved in a range of activities which have an impact on rural communities covering the City of Derby, Amber Valley, Derbyshire Dales, Erewash, High Peak and South Derbyshire.
7.2.72 DDEP’s aim is to promote sustainable economic opportunities in Derby & Derbyshire, and to improve the prosperity and overall environment for businesses, communities, individuals and visitors. DDEP acts as a co-ordinator for initiatives and considers projects relating to the encouragement of business, jobs creation, equality and sustainable communities.
7.2.73 In light of this, DDEP has developed a three stage approach to tackle rural challenges, comprising of the following key documents:
¾ The Sub-Regional Rural Action Plan, ¾ The Rural Action Zone Action Plan, ¾ The LEADER Local Development Strategy.
7.2.74 Regarding rural communities, there is an emphasis on removing social and economic barriers to business and community development, and ensuring that opportunities are equal.
7.2.75 Up until 2008, DDEP mainly focused rural delivery on the Peak District Rural Action Zone (RAZ) area, covering the High Peak and Derbyshire Dales districts within Derbyshire and parts of Staffordshire Moorlands and East Staffordshire districts in the West Midlands. The RAZ targeted specific challenges in the area, building on partnership working since the early 1990s.
7.2.76 To finance initiatives in the RAZ, DEFRA granted £150K, with an additional £65K provided in 2007 and an EMDA grant of £100K in 2005 for pilot Pathfinder initiatives. To facilitate this, a Pathfinder Enterprise Fund was set up with £50,000 available. The minimum amount any party could bid for is £2,500 with the maximum amount set at £10,000.
7.2.77 However, a new RAZ Action Plan has been prepared for 2008-11. This is aligned with the new Local Development Strategy to deliver the LEADER approach in the area through the Rural Development Programme for England up until 2013. The LEADER method focuses on a bottom-up approach to rural development and delivery.
7.2.78 The RAZ has been awarded RDPE funding provided by the EU and DEFRA totalling £1.9m until 2013. Again, this will be delivered via the “LEADER” method.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 97 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.2.79 The initiative is designed to enhance rural productivity, improving the quality of life in the Peak District. In particular focus will be on grant assistance to projects for very small rural businesses and social enterprises too small for the main RDPE programme; Grants from £3,500 will be available.
7.2.80 Essentially the RAZ helps to provide businesses with advice as well as facilitating networking and supporting Community groups.
7.3 Summary
7.3.1 Figure 7.4 and Table 7.1 summarises the schemes available, their impact and sustainability:
Web Parish Notice Board Radio Informal
News Letter Local Paper Community Service vans of Options of Knowledge Knowledge
Community Informal Car Share Traditional Transport Car Share schemes Bus Services
Wheels School Feeder Bus Taxi
Mode Options Mode to work Bus Services
Footway PT Cycle Schemes Infrastructure Schemes GettingPeople to Services Physical Measures Physical
Delivery of Fixed “Pub is the Hub” Shopping Local Facilities
E Delivery Mobile Community led not- to People Banking for-profit schemes
Getting Services Services Getting Mobile Services
Figure 7.4: Potential Schemes for the Study Area
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 98 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Scheme Justification Village hall internet Build on existing use of the internet in the study area – connections especially for those who may not be familiar with the internet. Community broadband Build on existing use of the internet – especially for those who may not be familiar with the internet. Village hall visitations for Improve knowledge of options and awareness on a subject key subjects which may lack coverage (e.g. community transport). Community services leaflet Provide a high quality information resource for communities and internet site to access. “Good Book Scheme” Currently there is no library service in Lees, Little Cubley, where there is no library Great Cubley and Waldley. The good book scheme could help to promote reading without the need for a visiting service. Expansion of Wheels to Provides access for a minority who have difficulty getting to Work work or education. Flexible bus services Provides a viable, accessible bus service by having either: 1. A set route that can be deviated from via pre booking. 2. A set route that can be deviated from at the drivers discretion. Coordination of health Currently a number of organisations deliver health-related related transport services transport within the study area, which may need greater co- provided by Community ordination. Transport, the Primary Care Trust and other voluntary organisations Car clubs High car ownership within the study area is likely to limit the demand for these services. Social Car Schemes Relies on volunteers being available, but allows great flexibility and door-to-door services. Physical improvements Footpaths may be needed to key facilities such as the within settlements Ostritch pub and playing fields in Longford. Similarly a footway to the school in Marston Montgomery has been requested. Alternatively rural speed management techniques may improve perceptions of safety. This does not remove problems of distance for the elderly or disabled. Expand “Pub is the Hub” Agglomerates facilities to make them viable at a central pub type schemes where location. Successful initiatives are already active in the appropriate study area. However, individual settlements are small which limits potential for expansion of this facility. Rural banking The questionnaire determined that there was some demand for mobile banking, similar schemes are successful elsewhere. Community owned shops Individual settlements are small which limits the immediate etc catchments for such ventures. Extend Pharmacy coverage Some settlements may not currently be covered by where necessary pharmacy delivery and should be covered. Table 7.1: Potential Schemes for the Study Area
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 99 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.3.2 From the above information, it appears that some interventions appear to be more appropriate to some locations than others. Figure 7.5 summarises the suitability of schemes against area.
Figure 7.5: Options for improving access against numbers in need and settlement structure
7.3.3 Figure 7.5 represents the potential interventions in terms of size of settlement (which is a proxy for number of services and facilities available locally), and the numbers of people in need of assistance accessing services and facilities.
7.3.4 The figure indicates that in small settlements where there are few people in need of assistance, then social car schemes (including volunteer drivers) and Wheels to Work type schemes are potentially useful, but may be unable to cope under high levels of demand as the ‘numbers in need’ increases. Comparatively, where there is high need for assistance in a more dense settlement structure, then traditional public transport services become viable.
7.3.5 In between these levels of assistance are Demand Responsive Transport and / or Community Transport options which require a certain level of patronage to become viable but excess demand would jeopardise its responsiveness.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 100 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
7.3.6 Cutting across options to take people to services and facilities, are options to bring services and facilities to people. If these are supported by public funds then they require a certain catchment to be effective, but not too great that they compete with, or would not be required, due to commercially viable alternatives (i.e. an LA is unlikely to support a community business within a city environment).
7.3.7 The important consideration is that strategies delivering individual services to people can suffer from fragmented demand, whereas taking people to locations where there are many services concentrates demand and thus is the more viable approach.
7.3.8 The Study Area considered within this document falls in the area of Figure 7.5 where there are low numbers of people in need of transport to services and facilities, and where settlement sizes are small. As such, the solutions are likely to be based around Community Transport, Demand Responsive Transport, Wheels to Work and Social Car Schemes.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 101 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
8 Study Area Recommendations
8.1 Locations for Future Development
8.1.1 Both the Community Workshops and the residents questionnaire identified that there was little, if any, movement within the study area itself (i.e. most movement is to locations outside the study area). There are few services and facilities remaining within the study area, with several facilities being closed in recent years.
8.1.2 However, the study area is not “isolated” as there are several larger settlements on the periphery of the study area that draw people towards them. The above data has identified a three-tier structure to describe this movement, comprising;
Tier 1: Derby is a clear draw for both employment, health, education and main shopping (food and non-food) trips. This is consistent with its size and relative proximity to the study area. Ashbourne can also be viewed as an important draw across the whole of the study area (which contrasts with its relative size compared with Derby).
Tier 2: Uttoxeter forms a secondary draw; (and could be viewed as a challenge to Ashbourne in future years from the results of the Community Workshops) with Burton important for non- food shopping trips.
Tier 3: At the lower level, there is evidence of trips made to and from Mickleover, Brailsford, Hatton and Hilton.
8.1.3 It would therefore appear sensible to concentrate future development around the settlements noted above; though it is noted that the study area is on the boundary of several planning authorities. However, in doing this, the planning authorities should seek contributions from developers to fund transport options to serve the study area; or to require facilities to deliver products or services to the study area. There may be scope to do this using the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which aims to give local authorities extra resources to invest in vital facilities including public services and social infrastructure. However, the scheme is not due to commence until the Autumn of 2009 and, as such, the mechanism is currently not well understood.
8.1.4 In terms of development within the study area, it has been noted that the existing road network is narrow and poorly developed. As such, the potential for large scale development within the study area itself is also limited.
8.1.5 The above means that trip lengths from the study area to services and facilities are likely to remain long. As such, options to transport those without access to a private car are required in order to secure the sustainability of the study area and to ensure services and facilities remain accessible to residents.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 102 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
8.2 Improving Access to Existing Services and Facilities
8.2.1 When considering an initiative to employ in a rural setting it is critical to make it acceptable to the local context. The following quote from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Action in Rural Areas Programme) encapsulates the challenge:
“The distinctive nature of social exclusion in rural areas is widely accepted and solutions need to be tailored to meet the needs of the disadvantaged……..There is no single solution to achieving a better quality of life for those who might otherwise be marginalised within their affluent surroundings. Solutions depend on combinations of factors at work within rural communities. These include the availability of facilities for community activity, and the willingness of local people including Parish Councils, to understand and support those who are least able to articulate their needs”.
8.2.2 From the array of potential schemes listed in Chapter 7, a range of initiatives are available to employ in the Study Area. From the list of potential schemes available the following have been selected as recommended initiatives:
¾ Sustained funding of Wheels to Work, ¾ Amendments to existing Community Transport / Demand Responsive Transport provision, ¾ Community services leaflet and internet site.
¾ Consideration of a rural traffic calming of Longford (to improve accessibility to playing fields and pub), and provision of footway.
8.2.3 As noted below, the above recommendations may require DCC to reconsider how it spends it public transport revenue budget in order to more flexibly accommodate non-traditional public transport services.
Sustained funding of Wheels to Work
8.2.4 The questionnaire identified a low number of households currently experiencing difficulty accessing employment and education due to transport problems. As such, it is recommended that the Wheels to Work scheme is supported within the study area via sustained funding and a fresh round of advertising. This would allow the targeting of specific households experiencing difficulty by providing a transport option that is in full control of the individual experiencing the transport-related difficulty.
8.2.5 It is unlikely that these households could be targeted via traditional public transport, or even Community Transport, given that access to employment and education is likely to be a daily need, at specific times.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 103 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Amendments to existing Community Transport / Demand Responsive Transport
8.2.6 Community Transport already provides access from the study area to those services and facilities that need to be visited on a non-daily basis and for which departure time is not critical (i.e shopping, some health, leisure / social).
8.2.7 The Community Workshops identified that there was some confusion with regards both eligibility and range of service provided by Community Transport, currently. This was confirmed by the residential questionnaire.
8.2.8 As a minimum, the existing Community Transport scheme should be the subject of a new advertising push to ensure residents are aware of its services; but some benefit is likely to accrue from the consolidation of Dial-a-Bus and Dial-a-Ride into a single branded Demand Responsive Transport service.
8.2.9 From the schemes noted to be running elsewhere in the Country, a suggested framework for a Demand Response Transport system is one based around;
¾ A service running between Ashbourne town centre and Derby (end points to be agreed), via Mickleover (serving the east of the study area), ¾ A service running between Ashbourne and Uttoxeter, (serving the west of the study area), ¾ An evening service to provide access to leisure and social facilities.
¾ Routes would be run to a timetable (start times only) with passengers dialling a number to request the bus diverts from their route to pick them up (i.e. it becomes more demand responsive), ¾ To keep travel times fast, if anyone requests a lift that would lead to a large diversion for other customers, a Taxi / Voluntary Car should be sent for that individual journey, ¾ The service should be, as far as possible, door-to-door to avoid passengers having to walk long distances within their villages where there are no footpaths (though mutually convenient stopping points would need to be agreed), ¾ The scheme would require appropriate subsidy, with nominal charges for the passengers applied.
***Note; it would not be possible to allow complete trips (i.e. Ashbourne to Derby etc.) to avoid competition with remaining commercial / subsidised routes, and a registration scheme for users would need to be administered.
8.2.10 It is noted that the above scheme framework would be introduced into an area in which traditional, fixed-line bus services have been removed. In part, this is due to the separate funding arrangements currently in place dividing subsidy for traditional public transport services and their Community Transport counterparts. The Demand Responsive Transport proposal, above, would sit between these options and there would consequently be some incentive for Derbyshire County Council to review their subsidy appraisal process to account for this more flexible approach to public transport provision. This may mean the re-working of the remaining fixed route services in the area (e.g. the 417) in order to fund the above proposed scheme.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 104 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Information and Co-ordination
8.2.11 A lack of information presents a barrier to a number of people as they are unaware of services or how to access them. It is recommended that a leaflet of all the services available in the study are circulated to help alleviate this problem. This should be in conjunction with a website providing the same details. Such resources should be updated and maintained regularly.
8.2.12 From the preceding sections, a variety of services exist to help people with a medical need to get to their appointments. However, these are currently administered by a variety of different organisations. As such, a single point of contact should be established to deal with, and co- ordinate queries with regards to transport options. This would need to be in the form of an email address, phone number and address.
8.2.13 The single point of contact would allow a Personalised Travel Planning service to be delivered, with access to information from across the services delivering transport options as identified in this report.
Assessment of the Options Mix
8.2.14 The desktop study, community workshops and residents questionnaire identified that the key service and facility destinations lay outside the study area, but that car ownership and usage was high. This, combined with the sparse nature of the area, means that those experiencing difficulty in accessing services and facilities are individual households spread across the study area.
8.2.15 The above means that a large scale intervention (including the reinstatement of traditional, fixed route bus services) is unlikely to be either successful or cost effective. The Options presented build on existing schemes that are known to be successful and seek to target individual households.
8.2.16 In order to be sustainable, the options require funding on a continuous basis and require some form of co-ordination (i.e. they are not based around one-off payment schemes). As such, the schemes would require some form of annual reporting mechanism to demonstrate impact in order to secure long-term funding. Funding of initiatives from comparative schemes across the UK has been secured from Government pilot schemes, (fluctuating) regional government pots, Primary Care Trusts, local authorities and private sponsorship.
8.2.17 Given that the options build on existing interventions, they are likely to be both deliverable and politically acceptable, though liaison with existing public transport operators would be required in terms of amending the Community Transport service.
8.2.18 Also, considering the location of the services and facilities that are being sought to access; the above options are likely to have a negligible impact (either positively or negatively) on climate change.
8.2.19 Table 8.1, overleaf, ranks the schemes using a subjective assessment.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 105 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Public / Political Compatibility with Scheme Funding Deliverability Impact Rank Acceptability Other Services Information and Co- High – coordination Local Authority, High – coordination Medium – under the High - Directly ordination of existing services potentially low outlay of existing services control of Derbyshire addresses comments and facility options but with regular and facility options County Council, but received during repeat costs. Full continued resourcing study; impact 1 Personalised Travel required therefore likely high. Planning would be costly. Wheels to Work High – builds on Currently funded Targets employment High – delivery body Medium - Directly existing service from many sources. and education trips, already exists, but addresses responses May require LA only. marketing would be received in support. Funding required. Residential 2 likely to be low based Questionnaire for on numbers certain trip types expressing interest.
Amendments to Medium – requires Own revenue stream Targets shopping, Medium – Medium - Directly Community changes and re- plus existing local health and leisure / organisational addresses responses Transport / Demand branding of an authority support plus social trips infrastructure and received in Responsive existing service additional pot buses already exist. Residential 3 Transport which would need funding. Marketing would be Questionnaire for careful marketing required. Expansion certain trip types of bus fleet may be required Rural Traffic Calming Medium – traffic Local Authority – LTP Low – looking at a Medium – within the Low – addresses a in Longford to calming has both pot specific journey type control of DCC specific journey. 4 facilitate pedestrian supporters and access opposition groups
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 106 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
9 “Seven Steps” Summary
Step One What is the problem? The Derbyshire Accessibility Strategy identified that an area to the south of Ashbourne has poor levels of accessibility to services and facilities. This has been confirmed by independent analysis in the preparation of DDDCs LDF Core Strategy.
Step Two Why does the public sector need to be A key Objective of the Derbyshire LTP is to involved? improve accessibility and this is confirmed within the Regional Spatial Strategy. Local Authorities have the powers and are one of the key sources of funding for transport initiatives.
Step Three What is the sort of place we are The study area is “sparse”, but not dealing with? “isolated”. The area is made up of several small villages with few services and facilities located within them. At the periphery of the study area are several larger settlements to which people are currently being drawn.
The area is one of high car ownership and usage, low unemployment and has a high % population over 60. Settlements are not compact, and lack consistent footpaths; discouraging walking and making access to traditional transport difficult.
Step Four Getting to grips with the problem Those that need better access to services and facilities are those without access to a private car; mainly those seeking employment or education opportunities or older people seeking access to the full range of facilities.
These people are spread across the study area, with no clear concentration of need.
Key draws are Derby, Ashbourne, Uttoxeter, Mickleover, Hatton and Brailsford.
Existing public transport services are infrequent. There is confusion with regards to existing Community Transport Provision. A range of other transport services exist to provide transport to services based on social or medical need.
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 107 Derbyshire County Council South of Ashbourne Rural Accessibility Study
Step Five The thee key questions
What do we need? Given the range of existing options, a co- ordinated system to deliver information to residents on the options available to them,
Flexible transport options (preferably door- to-door) that seek to target specific households.
What do we do now? A range of options currently exist to address transport problems within the study area. These include; Wheels to Work, Community Transport, Social Services Transport, and Volunteer Car Schemes.
What else is being done elsewhere? A review of schemes elsewhere within the UK has been undertaken. These include schemes to take people to services, services to people and the provision of information.
Step Six Work up and Challenge your Options The schemes recommended would be customer focused and cost effective. However, their requirement for continual funding means that their sustainability would need to be secured via the collection of evidence to show its impact on accessibility within the study area.
Step Seven The Best Solution Is recommended to be a mix of supporting Wheels to Work, an amendment to the existing Community Transport scheme and the provision of co-ordinated and consistent personalised information.
The above would allow the targeting of specific individuals and households experiencing transport difficulty, and would overcome barriers to using fixed route services that are not flexible enough to meet desired travel times (i.e. schemes must be Demand Responsive).
D118710 (RAS01) April 2009 108 Appendix A Brief
Rural Accessibility Study – South of Ashbourne
Project Understanding It is understood that in an area identified in the Study Brief (comprising a portion of Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire) there are a large number of villages and hamlets that have limited access to services and facilities (such as healthcare, education and training, employment opportunities, food shopping and leisure), and that additional research is needed to establish the extent of any functional relationship between settlements in that area in respect of access to services, and whether this could form the basis of their continued sustainability. (Sustainability is taken here to mean the ability of those living in individual settlements to access healthcare, education, employment and food shopping facilities.
DCC require a study to examine current accessibility to services for people living in the Study Area (as defined in the Brief), and to suggest how accessibility could be improved in future to ensure sustainability of the communities.
Proposed Method
1. Study Area Specify which settlements within the study area are to be considered, and identify the number of households within the study area in liaison with DCC (It is assumed that DCC could use the Electoral Roll, or equivalent, or similar, for this).
For the study area, available demographic statistics (from DCC and National Statistics) would be collected and reported in the form of appropriate tables and maps; with comment made in respect of implications for accessibility. Such demographic statistics would include details of population count, indices of deprivation, unemployment count, age structure).
It is assumed that DCC could provide outputs from its Accession software for this element of work.
2. Existing Provision Identify existing levels of transport provision in the study area, and establish how existing resources (particularly local bus subsidy, or local people) are currently being used to improve access to, or provision of, services in the study area, by speaking with the contact list provided by Derbyshire County Council. These would include;
• Local Bus services, • Community Transport, • Wheels to Work, • Taxis, • Voluntary or social car schemes, • Social Services Transport, • Non-emergency Patient Transport (provided by East Midlands Ambulance Service), • Cycling, • Walking, • School bus services.
It is suggested that one meeting would be required to introduce the scheme to all DCC officers, hosted by Rebecca Pennyfather, from which a co-ordinated input from DCC could be achieved. This input would include information regarding extent of networks (PT, walking and cycling), existing individual schemes, likely future changes, outputs from Accession and budgetary information (including subsidy).
For non-DCC contacts, the named persons would be contacted by email initially, and then by email / phone to identify the above required information.
In addition to the contact list, Parish Councils would also be contacted (DCC to supply list of Parish Councils and there contact details)
3. Measuring Current Accessibility for Residents
A). Establish how people within the study area can currently access the following services:
• Ashbourne Community Hospital, • Derby City Hospitals, • Burton on Trent General Hospital, • Their nearest GP surgery, • NHS Dentist, • Further Education and Training Establishments, • Employment Opportunities (including Dove Valley Business Park), • Healthy/Affordable food, • Leisure Centre, • Playing Fields, • Cinema, • Post Office, • Cash Point (free to use), • Village Hall.
B) Establish the take up rate of any mobile services in the area
C) Establish the perceived barriers which prevent access to these services
D) Establish the extent of any functional relationships between the settlements in the study area in respect of access to services (in terms of spatial relationships, only (i.e. a mathematical function would not be calculated)).
The above would be undertaken through a desk-top assessment, questionnaire survey and two Community Stakeholder groups.
For the Desktop Assessment The locations of each of the facilities listed above would be identified within the study area (for which data from DCC would be provided, including locational detail). Where services are not available within a given settlement (the assumed walking horizon), the nearest such facility would be identified, and public transport options to and from the nearest facility would be recorded in terms of service frequency, length and number of connections. If facilities are available within 5km of a settlement, it would be considered within cycling range.
For the survey, ● A survey questionnaire would be designed by SW, and agreed with DCC. This would enquire about the number of trips to the above facilities (including trip end information), how those trips are undertaken, the take-up rate of mobility services and any perceived barriers restricting access. ● It is assumed that an address list would be provided by DCC and DCC could arrange for the copying and distribution of the survey form. ● To encourage a large return (1) a pre-paid envelope or Freepost address would be required, to be arranged by DCC. ● The surveys would be coded to a particular area within the study area (assumed to be LSOA areas).
Suggested initial headings for the Questionnaire would be; ¾ Household detail (including location (settlement name and postcode) and household income), ¾ Access to health services, ¾ Access to Education services, ¾ Access to Shopping opportunities, ¾ Access to leisure services, ¾ Use of mobility services, ¾ Opportunities for improvement.
The survey would be styled as a tick-box exercise (i.e. with little or new answers requiring respondents to write answers to open-ended questions).
For the Community Stakeholder Groups, ● Two Community Stakeholder Groups would be facilitated by SW and DCC staff, based on an invitation list comprising parish / town / district councillors within the study area; for which a contact list would be required from DCC, and other parties to be identified in liaison with DCC.
* * *
For the above, consideration would be made with regards to accessing services outside of the study area, if not available or used within.
4. Improving Accessibility Results from the Residents Survey and Community Forum, and contact with the provided contact list, would assist in the identification of limitations / problems with current arrangements and opportunities for improvement.
SW would suggest how existing resources (particularly local bus subsidy, or local people) could be used differently to improve access to, or provision of, services in the study area. A subjective ranking of potential improvements would be used, principally based on population and potential (increased) access to number of facilities. The ranking would also include; public/political acceptability, funding, compatibility with other services, deliverability and impact on the wider community. No estimate would be made on potential increases in patronage, and further detailed assessment of individual schemes may be required following this study.
Where appropriate, linkages would be made to current Government policy on Climate Change, as described in Climate Change: The UK Programme 2006 and the Government’s Smarter Choices campaign.
It is expected that information obtained from the key contacts would allow the identification of possible funding opportunities to help address the identified access solutions, in liaison with DCC and EMDA.
Where improvements are identified, they would be costed (where such costs could be reasonably estimated, and supporting actions identified that could help the future sustainability of communities.
Brief for consultants: “Rural Accessibility Study”
Background Improving accessibility to key services such as healthcare, education and training, employment opportunities, food shopping and leisure facilities, has been identified as a key issue in a number of locally focused documents:
• The Derbyshire Accessibility Strategy, produced by the County Council (part of the second Local Transport Plan); • Community/Corporate Strategies and Plans, produced by District and Borough Councils as well as the County Council; and • Parish Plans, produced by local parishes
Initial work undertaken by Derbyshire Dales District Council on their Core Strategy, identified that in the south of the District there is a large number of villages and hamlets that have limited access to services and facilities, and that additional research was needed to establish the extent of any functional relationship between settlements in that area in respect of access to services, and whether this could form the basis of their continued sustainability. ..
The Derbyshire Accessibility Strategy identified access to services from rural areas as an issue, and subsequent work identified the same study area.
The study area falls within Derbyshire County Council, Derbyshire Dales District Council and South Derbyshire District Council areas. The three councils are keen to work together to review access to services and the sustainability of communities.
The results of this study will be used to inform the development of Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire’s Local Development Frameworks, and also in the delivery of the Derbyshire Accessibility Strategy.
The Study Area The extent of the area to be covered by this study is shown in Appendix 1. The area falls mainly within the planning authority of Derbyshire Dales District Council, with a small part of the area being covered by South Derbyshire District Council.
The area is rural in nature and contains many villages with low populations and limited services. There are limited opportunities to travel to the neighbouring towns of Ashbourne, Derby or Uttoxeter by public transport.
The work involved The brief is to examine current accessibility to services for people living in the rural study area, and to suggest how accessibility could be improved in future to ensure sustainability of the communities.
The following work will be required: a) Identify existing levels of transport provision in the study area, including:
• Local Bus services • Community Transport • Wheels to Work • Taxis • Voluntary or social car schemes • Social Services Transport • Non-emergency Patient Transport (provided by East Midlands Ambulance Service) • Cycling • Walking • School bus services
Information should be collected by speaking to the relevant organisation. (A list of contacts is given in Appendix 2, but this should not be taken as exhaustive). b) Identify how people within the study area can currently access the following services:
• Ashbourne Community Hospital • Derby City Hospitals • Burton on Trent General Hospital • Their nearest GP surgery • NHS Dentist • Further Education and Training Establishments • Employment Opportunities (including Dove Valley Business Park) • Healthy/Affordable food • Leisure Centre • Playing Fields • Cinema • Post Office • Cash Point (free to use) • Village Hall c) Establish the take up rate of any mobile services in the area d) Identify the barriers which prevent access to these services (e.g. travel time, cost) e) Suggest how existing resources (particularly local bus subsidy, or local people) could be used differently to improve access to, or provision of, services in the study area. (explore the potential for Social Enterprise schemes) f) Identify possible funding opportunities to help address the identified access solutions g) Identify fully costed options/actions which will help the future sustainability of communities h) Establish the extent of any functional relationships between the settlements in the study area in respect of access to services
Timescale
The work is to be undertaken during Winter/Spring 2007/08 and the final report produced by 31st March 2008
Methodology
Information should be collected in the following ways:
• A survey of residents • Facilitated community forums • Discussions with contacts given in Appendix 2
Other methods of collection, suggested by the consultant, would also be considered
Reports
The following reports are to be produced.
An initial report to include:
1. maps and diagrams showing: a. the study area b. the demographics of the area c. location of services accessed from the area d. coverage of existing transport provision
2. an assessment of which services people access, from where and how they get there. 3. details of existing transport provision, including the cost of provision 4. an initial assessment of the barriers preventing people from accessing services 5. an appraisal of options, stating what has been considered and what has been rejected 6. An assessment of any functional relationship between the settlements in the study area.
Monthly Progress Reports
A final report to include:
• A prioritised list of suggested improvements, with costs and funding streams. • A suggested timescale for delivery, noting any key risks and assessing mitigating measures • Maps and diagrams for each suggested improvement • A statement detailing the methodology and basis on which the selection of options was decided, and • an assessment of how well the proposed actions meet the objectives of the Derbyshire LTP Accessibility Strategy.
Reports are to be sent to the client in hard copy form at least 5 working days prior to any meeting. Reports must also be available in electronic form.
Copyright of all reports vests with the client and the consultant may not use the reports or the findings therein without the express permission of the client, though such permission will not normally be refused.
Meetings with the Client
A number of meetings are anticipated and should be allowed for in estimating the cost of this work. • An inception meeting will be required prior to the commencement of the work to clarify any outstanding points and agree any amendments to the programme brief. • Monthly progress meetings to include updates on work completed, underway and planned, as well as a financial review. • A meeting on the production of the initial report, at which time the consultant will be required to give a presentation of the findings of the work and an initial assessment of the likely recommendations. • The final meeting will follow the production of a draft of the final report and the consultant will be required to give a further presentation setting out their final recommendations and the reasoning behind them.
In responding to this brief, the consultant should specify the costs of any further meetings that may be required/requested.
Meeting dates will be set at the inception meeting. Notes will be made of all meetings.
Modelling Work
It is not anticipated that any transport modelling will be used, but use of the Accession software may be required.
Responding to the Brief
In responding to this brief, the consultant should set out how they intend to carry out the work, the methods they intend to employ, the timescale and the likely cost. The response to the brief should be sent to Rebecca Pennyfather and must be received by 21/12/07. Appendix B Ranking of Parish Services and Facilities
Village Shop Doctors Post Office Employment Primary School Youth Organisation Supermarket Dentist Cash machine Secondary school Leisure centre Pharmacy Playing field Community internet access Village hall 15 23 2 1 2 5 Location Shopping Health Finance Emplyment Education Leisure TOTAL Ashbourne Town 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 15.0 100% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Score 4.0 15.0 8.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 47.0 Osmaston and Yeldersley 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 20% 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 Score 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 9.0 Boylestone 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 27% 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 Score 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 6.0 10.0 Edlaston and Wyaston 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7% 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Doveridge (outside area) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 47% 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 Score 2.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 20.0 Cubley 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 27% 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 Score 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 10.0 Brailsford 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 53% 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.4 Score 4.0 10.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 25.0 Clifton and Compton 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 27% 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Score 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.6 5.6 Marston Montgomery 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 27% 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Score 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 Longford 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 20% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 Norbury and Roston 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 20% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 Hollington 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alkmonton and Hungry Bentley 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 13% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 Offcote and Underwood 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7% 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Rodsley & Yeaveley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shirley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Snelston 1 1.0 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Somersall Herbert 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sudbury 2 2 1 1 1 3 10.0 67% 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.6 Score 4.0 10.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 27.0 Barton Blount 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bearwardcote 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Church Broughton 1 1 2.0 13% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 Dalbury Lees 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Etwall & Ash 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 15.0 100% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Score 4.0 15.0 8.0 6.0 10.0 43.0 Foston & Scropton 0 1 2 3.0 20% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 Hatton 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 11.0 73% 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 Score 4.0 5.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 28.0 Hilton 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 13.0 87% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 Score 4.0 15.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 38.0 Hoon 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marston-on-Dove 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Osleston & Thurvaston 1 0 1.0 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Radbourne 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sutton-on-the-Hil 1 2 3.0 20% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 Trusley 0 1 1.0 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Score 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
Ques 10 Weights Health 90% 5 Food 62% 4 Financial 57% 4 Education 48% 3 Social/leisure 23% 2 Non-food 18% Appendix C Residential Questionnaire
Ques number Question
2 Adults (over 16) in household 1 2 3 4 5 Working full-time (30+ hours week) 307 162 29 5 Working part-time (less 30 hours week) 223 37 3 Retired 208 232 6 Unemployed (seeking employment) 19 3 Unemployed (not seeking employment) 56 4 Full-time education / training 57 23 5 1
4 How people get to work Own car Taxi Walk Car share Bus 523 6 40 24 14 660 % 79% 1% 6% 4% 2%
Train Motorbike/scooter Bicycle 19 9 25 3% 1% 4%
5 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No/infrequent bus service Taxi expensive Bus expensive 387 268 360 229 25 ('Other') 1 1 22 1 388 269 382 229 26 1609 24% 17% 24% 14% 2%
Work shifts Prefer car Work from home Needed for work Disabled 56 156 115 117 66 1 57 173 66 1 4% 11% 0% 4% 0%
No train service Live in country No choice Roads too dangerous to cycle Too dangerous to walk No showers/changing at work car-share
21 25116 21 25116 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
6 Any member not in paid employment relating to transport problems Yes No 16 515 531 3% 97%
7 Number of cars in household One Two Three Four More than 4 291 457 102 24 9 883 33% 52% 12% 3% 1%
8 Household with internet access Yes - dial up Yes - Broadband No 85 598 247 930 9% 64% 27%
9 Method of checking info on local council service Phone Post Email Website Visit to council office Other method 738 78 117 454 106 7 1500 49% 5% 8% 30% 7% 0%
10 Importance in accessing services Very Quite Not Education 390 165 262 Health 824 86 9 Food 566 301 45 Non-food 156 499 209 Financial 506 327 62 Social/leisure 200 478 188
11 How often is public transport used to access Regularly % Sometimes % Never % TOTAL Work 29 4% 81 10% 700 86% 810 Healthcare 17 2% 52 6% 774 92% 843 Education/training 61 7% 53 6% 703 86% 817 Food shopping 40 5% 56 7% 761 89% 857 Non-food shopping 22 3% 185 22% 645 76% 852 Leisure 20 2% 264 31% 573 67% 857 Socialising 20 2% 175 21% 649 77% 844 Visiting family / friends 25 3% 187 22% 654 76% 866
12 Measures to encourage people to use buses / trains more Real Time Service info More comfortable More accessible More frequent More reliable 176 69 298 462 184 ('Other') 1 5 100 36 177 74 398 498 184 1899 9% 4% 21% 26% 10% Cheaper Improved waiting facilities Nothing Better bus / train connections Safer route 258 98 143 26 1147 260 104 154 4 7 14% 5% 8% 0% 0%
Direct route A local station Secure parking Cheaper parking Nearby park and ride
52 374 52 374 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Accessibility for the disabled Anyway any time ticket Extended route Cost of using car Text service for buses
22 1121 22 1121 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
13 Use community Transport Yes No 64 864 928 7% 93%
14 Use car share schemes Yes No 29 886 915 3% 97%
15 Frequency railway station use Daily Few times a week Weekly Monthly Occasionally Don't use Willington 1 1 48 657 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 28% Tutbury and Hatton 2 8 118 607 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 26% Derby Station 0 0 17 75 504 307 0% 0% 1% 3% 21% 13%
17 Usual mode of travel to facility Walk Cycle Bus Train Own Car Taxi GP Surgery 45 17 14 1 818 9 Dentist 9 9 24 5 852 4 Optician 8 5 45 868 6 Chemist 27 1 3 837 3 St Oswalds Hospital 6 4 11 648 6 Derby City Hospitals 11 13 2 816 8 Burton-on-Trent Hospital 1 5 600 4 Other Staffordshire Hospital 3 480 1 106 37 118 8 5919 41 2% 1% 2% 0% 90% 1%
Motorbike Community transport Non-emergency patient transport Lift from friend/relative Voluntary car scheme Other 74 14663 64 35 4 2 35 13232 54 1121 33 23462 32 75792 31 12662 2 14 3 1 32 23 13 256 38 14 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0%
18 Reason for car use to access health facility Too far walk Too far cycle No suitable public transport Taxi expensive Bus expensive Train expensive 649 336 635 273 39 33 ('Other') 7 1 44 656 337 679 273 39 33 2398 27% 14% 28% 11% 2% 1%
Prefer car Disabled Bus too infrequent Footpaths not suitable Parking inadequecies Time constraints Needed for work 362 19 11 19 6 3 7 2 381 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
19 Liklihood of phoning NHS Direct service rather than visiting GP Not at all likely Not very likely Neither likely nor unlikely Quite likely Very likely 199 289 101 244 92 925 22% 31% 11% 26% 10%
20 Use mobile health service Yes No If yes, service Number 47 886 BREAST SCREENING 5 5% 95% CANCER SCREENING 1 CHIROPODY 35 MAMMOGRAM 4 PHYSIO 1 933
21 Unable to access healthcare services in past year due to transport issues Yes No 37 887 924 4% 96%
22 Local access to services Greengrocer Butcher Baker Convenience store Supermarket Post Office Farm Shop Yes 155 232 114 195 184 303 151 Yes % 16% 24% 12% 20% 19% 31% 16% No 807 730 848 767 778 659 811 No % 84% 76% 88% 80% 81% 69% 84% 962 962 962 962 962 962 962
23 Shop locally at services Greengrocer Butcher Baker Convenience store Supermarket Post Office Farm Shop Yes 90 144 71 131 161 252 81 9% 15% 7% 14% 17% 26% 8% Have access and use 58% 62% 62% 67% 88% 83% 54% No 872 818 891 831 801 710 881 91% 85% 93% 86% 83% 74% 92% 962 962 962 962 962 962 962
25 How people obtain main shopping Own Car Car Share Taxi Motorbike Bus 874 20 5 1 37 1053 83% 2% 0% 0% 4%
Bicycle Walk Train Shop delivers Someone else gets it 89 06336 1% 1% 0% 6% 3%
26 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No bus service Taxi too expensive Bus service too expensive 156 4 144 4 163 ('Other') 8 156 4 152 4 163 601 26% 1% 25% 1% 27%
Prefer to use car Bus service inconvenient Bus service infrequent Disbaled user Give lift 46 51 3 4 10 1 97 3 4 10 1 16% 0% 1% 2% 0%
No option Way home from work Unsafe Other 84 51 1 51 1 1% 0% 0%
27 Frequency of main shopping More than once a week Once a week Less than once a week 212 637 95 944 22% 67% 10%
28 Household have access to independent food deliveries Yes No 385 553 938 41% 59%
29 Household make use of independent food deliveries Yes No 189 279 468 40% 60%
30 If yes, which service is made use of Groceries Fish Meat Bread/baked goods Dairy products 33 47 21 17 166 ('Other') 7 4 40 47 21 17 170 302 13% 16% 7% 6% 56%
Frozen food Meals on Wheels Ready Meals Supermarket home delivery Other 18 22 12 22 12 1% 1% 0% 1%
32 Method of travel for few extra provisions Own Car Car Share Taxi Motorbike Bus 848 8 1 6 27 1031 82% 1% 0% 1% 3%
Bicycle Walk Train Shop delivers Someone else gets it 27 57 1 6 50 3% 6% 0% 1% 5%
33 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No bus service Taxi too expensive Bus service too expensive 187 3 142 1 146 ('Other') 1 187 3 143 1 146 542 35% 1% 26% 0% 27%
Prefer to use car Distance to travel En route / Whilst at work Bus service inconvenient Bus service infrequent 34 10 4 9 5 4 44 4 9 5 8% 1% 2% 1% 0%
Disabed user No safe footpath Time issues No choice Other 57 62 511
0% 0% 0% 0%
34 Frequency extra provisions Daily More than once a week Once a week Less than once a week 27 316 311 264 918 3% 34% 34% 29%
36 Household uses internet for food shopping Yes No 125 802 927 13% 87%
38 Method of travel for non-food shopping Own Car Car Share Taxi Motorbike Bus 869 19 2 4 92 1071 81% 2% 0% 0% 9%
Bicycle Walk Train Shop delivers Someone else gets it Other 9 8 21 18 29 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 39 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No bus service Taxi too expensive Bus service too expensive 170 2 140 1 3 ('Other') 1 21 171 2 142 1 4 553 31% 0% 26% 0% 1%
Prefer to use car Distance to travel En route / Whilst at work Bus service inconvenient Bus service infrequent 181 34 6 669 187 34 6 6 34% 6% 1% 1% 0% Disabed user Time issues No choice
42 11
0% 0% 0%
40 Internet for non-food shopping Yes No 486 436 922 53% 47%
41 Cash facilities household uses Bank / building society Post office Shop cashback at checkout Cash point Cash exchange shop None 746 231 429 660 5 13 2084 36% 11% 21% 32% 0% 1%
43 Charge for cash withdrawals Yes No Don't know 18 874 29 921 2% 95% 3%
44 If have access, look after money matters on internet Yes No 389 449 838 46% 54%
45 Use of counter service if provided at local public house / garage Not likely at all Not very likely Neither likely nor unlikely Quite likely Very likely 590 224 29 55 26 924 64% 24% 3% 6% 3%
46 Would use a mobile banking service Not likely at all Not very likely Neither likely nor unlikely Quite likely Very likely 432 265 78 118 30 923 47% 29% 8% 13% 3%
47 Method of checking information on beneifts / tax credit entitlements By phone By post By email Look on website Visit local council offices Visit citizen's Advice Bureau 644 84 68 394 61 47 1323 49% 6% 5% 30% 5% 4%
48 Use of educational facilities in household Playgroup Day care Pre-school Nursery Primary school No 685 693 686 684 631 Yes 34 14 30 24 98
Secondary school College University Adult education classes 624 656 635 573 98 27 56 144
49 Do the children in the household go to school of parent/guardian's choice? Yes Some do, some don't No 165 2 93 260 63% 1% 36%
50 Participation in further education course Yes No - but would like to receive training No - not interested at the moment 101 164 537 802 13% 20% 67%
51 Method of travel for those involved in further education courses Own Car Car Share Taxi Motorbike Bus 218 10 23 270 81% 4% 0% 0% 9%
Bicycle Walk Train 13 15 0% 1% 6%
52 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No bus service Taxi too expensive Bus service too expensive 53 50 1 ('Other') 1 1 4 1 1 54 1 54 1 2 165 33% 1% 33% 1% 1%
Prefer to use car En route / Whilst at work Bus service inconvenient Bus service infrequent Disabed user No choice 43 61 2114 49 1 2 1 30% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
53 Interest in adult education courses in village Yes No 466 404 870 54% 46%
54 Any members aged 16 - 21 not in education due to transport problems Yes No 5 186 191 3% 97% 55 Liklihood of taking academic course by post / interent rather than travelling to school / college Not likely at all Not very likely Neither likely nor unlikely Quite likely Very likely 282 218 116 140 49 805 35% 27% 14% 17% 6%
56 Liklihood of accessing bus information via the internet Not likely at all Not very likely Neither likely nor unlikely Quite likely Very likely 324 115 54 210 138 841 39% 14% 6% 25% 16%
57 Use of leisure facilities in household Sports centre with swimming Sports centre without swimming Gym Sports pitch Park No 400 633 562 590 430 Yes 417 50 163 109 299
Cinema Theatre Formal play area Playing fields 246 327 595 560 566 441 91 131
58 Usual mode of travel to leisure facility own car Car share Taxi Motorbike Bus Sports centre with swimming 431 4 1 6 Sports centre without swimming 112 1 1 Gym 196 4 24 Sports pitch 138 4 1 Park 274 5 2 Cinema 538 20 1 7 Theatre 406 27 2 8 Formal play area 134 2 1 2229 67 4 2 30 91% 3% 0% 0% 1%
Cycle Walk Community transport Train 35 1 11 24 218 533 1
14 223 1 15 84 1 16 2448 1% 3% 0% 1%
59 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No bus service Taxi too expensive Bus service too expensive Prefer to use car 142 3 139 2 117 ('Other') 1 1 3 1 1 9 143 4 142 1 3 126 449 32% 1% 32% 0% 1% 28%
En route / Whilst at work Bus service inconvenient Bus service infrequent Disabed user Unsafe Time issues 19 34 4323 22 4 4 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
No choice Other 42 7
0%
60 Frequency attend facilities Daily A few times a week Weekly Monthly Infrequent Don't use Sports centre with swimming 6 71 149 76 137 269 Sports centre without swimming 11 25 9 34 404 Gym 7 64 57 15 35 377 Sports pitch 34 51 17 33 389 Park 5 31 64 97 144 262 Cinema 1 16 186 386 152 Theatre 1 4 94 383 202 Formal play area 2 12 23 30 50 383 Playing Fields 4 34 32 28 57 370 24 259 421 552 1259 2808 0.5% 4.9% 7.9% 10.4% 23.7% 52.8%
62 Use of social facilities in household Pub Social club Community centre Religious centre Village hall Welfare centre Day care centre No 212 662 672 508 417 676 675 Yes 628 42 22 240 358 4 5
63 Method of travel to facilities Own Car Car Share Taxi Motorbike Bus Cycle 607 Pub 314 34 5 1 2 11 6% Social club 51 1 12 Community centre 31 1 Religious centre 155 9 1 3 Village hall 162 6 4 Day care centre 18 731 50 6 2 4 19 54% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Walk Community Transport Train 240 33 91 87 186 1 2 525 7 0 1344 39% 1% 0% 64 If 'own car' this is because Too far to walk Too far to cycle No bus service Taxi too expensive Bus service too expensive Prefer to use car 101 2 100 112 ('Other') 1 1 1 1 1 3 102 3 101 1 1 115 326 31% 1% 31% 0% 0% 35%
En route / Whilst at work Bus service inconvenient Bus service infrequent Disabed user Unsafe Time issues No choice
1 246 6 10 2 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Appendix D Stakeholder Contacts
Project Steering Group
Name Position Organisation Mike Hase Planning Policy Manager Derbyshire Dales District Council Richard Groves Planning Policy Officer South Derbyshire District Council Becky Pennyfather Accessibility Planning Officer Derbyshire County Council David Marsden Transport Partnership Officer Derbyshire County Council
Stakeholder Contacts
Name Position Organisation Role Contacted Date Cllr Andrew Lewer Elected Member Derbyshire County Council Elected Member Meeting, Letter and Community Workshop Various dates Elaine Wachlarz Community Transport Officer Derbyshire County Council Strategic Community Transport information Telephone May-08 Peter Jenner Public Transport Officer Derbyshire County Council Local Bus provision Meeting at DCC, and follow up email 13/03/2008 Pete Leigh SE Highway Team Manager Derbyshire County Council Highway information (South Derbys), including cycle provision Meeting at DCC 13/03/2008 Claire O’Reilly Rights of Way Officer Derbyshire County Council Rights of Way information Meeting at DCC 13/03/2008 Neill Bennett Data Officer Derbyshire County Council Data analysis and collection Meetings and Telephone Various dates Philip Smith School Transport Derbyshire County Council School transport provision Email 26/03/2008 Michael Reardon School Transport Derbyshire County Council School transport provision Email and meeting May-08 Kevin Fradley Community Transport Manager Ashbourne Community Transport Services and area covered Email, telephone and at Community Workshops March - May 08 Bill Corbishley Community Transport Manager Swadlincote Community Transport Services and area covered Email and phone calls March - Nov 08 & 26/02/2009 Amanda Brown Rural Action Zone Officer Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership (SPP) Issues relating to potential funding opportunities and rural access to services issues Email and phone calls Various dates Peak District Rural Action Zone Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership (SPP) Issues relating to potential funding opportunities and rural access to services issues Giles Dann Development Manager Email and phone calls Various dates Sandie Abberley Wheels to Work Officer Derbyshire Rural Community Council Info on Wheels to Work provision in the study area Meeting 18/04/2008 Helena Stubbs Rural Officer Derbyshire Rural Community Council Rural issues Meeting 02/04/2008 Susan Meech Economic Development Manager East Midlands Development Agency Info on rural issues, funding and the future of Wheels to Work Email 26/03/2008 Mel Buxton tient Transport Service and Phlebotomy L Derbyshire County PCT Issues relating to patient transport Meeting and follow up email 18/04/2008 Judith Laverty Sustainable Transport Officer Derbyshire County Council Email 26/03/2008 Alastair Morley Transport Partnership Officer Derbyshire County Council meeting at DCC 13/03/2008 Richard Tulloch Economic Development Officer East Midlands Development Agency Email 26/03/2008 Kalla Maroosis Economic Development Officer East Midlands Development Agency Email 31/03/2008
Parish Contacts
Name Position Organisation Role Contacted Date Mrs H Walker Parish Contact Alkmonton & Hungry Bentley Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs P Woodyatt Parish Contact Ashbourne Town Letter 31/03/2008 Mr P Wilkins Parish Contact Boylestone Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs L Faulkner Parish Contact Brailsford Letter 31/03/2008 Ms E Glanville Parish Contact Clifton Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs G Millington Parish Contact Cubley Letter 31/03/2008 Mr T Carter Parish Contact Doveridge Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs J Dixon Parish Contact Edlaston & Wyaston Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs E Glanville Parish Contact Hollington Letter 31/03/2008 Mr M J Tunnicliffe Parish Contact Longford Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs J O'Shaughnessy Parish Contact Marston Montgomery Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs P Fielding Parish Contact Norbury & Roston Letter 31/03/2008 Mr K J Lomas Parish Contact Offcote & Underwood Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs J M Duckmanton Parish Contact Osmaston & Yeldersley Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs J Bailey Parish Contact Rodsley & Yeaveley Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs H Walker Parish Contact Shirley Letter 31/03/2008 Mr C Lewer (Chair to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Snelston Letter 31/03/2008 Mr R Towe (Chair to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Somersall Herbert Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs C J Gould Parish Contact Sudbury Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs M W Faulkner (Chair to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Barton Blount Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs H Steeples Parish Contact Church Broughton Letter 31/03/2008 Miss R Slack Parish Contact Dalbury Lees Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs L Gardner Parish Contact Etwall & Ash Letter 31/03/2008 Mr R Smith Parish Contact Foston & Scropton Letter 31/03/2008 Mr J Maw Parish Contact Hatton Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs C Orme Parish Contact Hilton Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs H J M Spurrier (Chair to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Marston-on-Dove Letter 31/03/2008 Mrs I Dutton (Clerk to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Osleston & Thurvaston Letter 31/03/2008 Rev M Bishop (Chair) to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Radbourne Letter 31/03/2008 Mr C G Buckston (Chair to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Sutton-on-the-Hill Letter 31/03/2008 Mr D Coke-Steel (Clerk to Parish Meeting) Parish Contact Trusley Letter 31/03/2008
Additional contacts Referal Organisation Role Contacted Claire Threapleton Suggested by Mel Buxton PCT - Primary Care Link Phone call Various dates Elspeth Mallowan NE Derbyshire (shirebrookbased) Rural Transport Partnership Project Rural Transport Project Officer Out of area Various dates Ian Towndrow Suggested by Mel Buxton PCT - First Responder Service No reply to numerous phone Various dates Jill Geddes Suggested by Helena Stubbs Volunteer Centre - Ashbourne Yes - Via email and telephone 11/04/2008 & 26/02/2009
Mark Armstrong Reid Suggested by Mel Buxton PCT Phone call Various dates Mick Bond Suggested by Mel Buxton PCT Phone call Sarah Wolfe Ashbourne Partnership email and telephone call Various dates Tina Sullivan Suggested by Mel Buxton PCT Matron for Ashbourne Hospital Phone call Left message Suggested by debbie at VCDD AMAG (Ashbourne Mobility Action Group)