Local Government Review in the County Council Area

Research Study Conducted by MORI for The Boundary Committee for

April 2004

Contents

Page Introduction 5

Executive Summary 9

1. Attitudes to Local Governance 11

2. Attitudes to Issues under Review 19

3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23

Option A 27

Option B 31

Option C 35

4. Preferred New Council Name 39

APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up County-wide Questionnaire

3

Introduction

This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Lancashire County Council area. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called ‘districts’ in this report) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities.

In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in the autumn 2004 referendum.

MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community. These findings can be found at the Committee’s web site (www.boundarycommittee.org.uk) and MORI’s web site (www.mori.com). The findings were taken into account by the Committee in formulating its draft recommendations for consultation. The second part of the research, which took place in Stage Three of the Committee’s review, has been primarily concerned with residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals and the reasons for local people’s preferences. The findings from the second part of the research are the subject of this report.

Coverage of Main Research MORI has undertaken research in all 44 districts in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. Within each district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home, between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 13,676 interviews took place across the three regions.

5 Additional Interviews In addition to the main research described above, the Committee also asked MORI to undertake further research where it considered it needed further evidence. This related to its reviews in , Lancashire and North Yorkshire. First, in districts which the Committee identified may be split in the event of local government reorganisation, it asked MORI to interview additional respondents in order to gauge in more detail their views about options which would directly affect them. The districts were Selby (North Yorkshire), Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal (Cheshire), and Fylde, Rossendale, and Wyre (Lancashire). A total of some 2,000 interviews took place across these areas.

Second, MORI was asked to interview a representative sample of some 300 residents in each of four single-tier councils adjacent to review areas - Sefton, , Wirral and York.

Findings from the additional interviews have been reported separately.

Style Protocols in this Report We have adopted a number of protocols throughout this report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 The Lancashire County Council Area

7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Lancashire County Council area (in the North West region). Reports and data for the other five counties under review have been provided separately. Within each two-tier district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 3,676 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the Lancashire County Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age, gender and work status. For aggregated county data, findings have also been weighted by the population size of each individual district. The methodology applied in this research, along with showcards showing the options put forward for consultation and a marked-up questionnaire, are set out in the appendices to this report.

Full computer tabulations have been provided separately. County-wide reports for each county under review, and summary reports for each district, have also been provided under separate cover.

Publication of the Data As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings.

Mapping The maps in the Introduction and Chapter 3 of this report are reproduced by kind permission of The Boundary Committee for England from those it used during its Stage Three consultations.

MORI Contact Details

Simon Atkinson, Research Director Renuka Engineer, Senior Research Executive Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive Paul Samuels, Research Executive Neil Wholey, Senior Research Executive

79-81 Borough Road London SE1 1FY Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.mori.com © MORI/20362

8 Executive Summary

• The most important issues which Lancashire residents consider should be taken into account when deciding how council boundaries should be changed are the quality of services and being responsive to local people’s wishes. Other important factors are the need for accountability to local people and the cost of services.

• Respondents were briefed during the interview about the review of local government and shown cards setting out the main patterns of unitary local government on which the Committee consulted (Appendix 1). The options were:

- Option A: a unitary council based upon the majority of the County Council area, with part of Rossendale combined with Rochdale and part of Wyre combined with ;

- Option B: seven unitary councils (see p.19 for details);

- Option C: eight unitary councils (see p.19 for details).

• Overall, preferences are finely balanced between the three options. Each is preferred by around a fifth of residents.

• One in seven residents specify, unprompted, a preference for no change. One in four do not have a view (a notably higher proportion than MORI found in the other five counties under review).

• The main reason for preferring Option A is the view that it would be more efficient or provide better value for money. For Options B and C, residents’ main reason is that they would like a council which covers a small area.

• There is a rather clearer view overall in the county about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is nominated by over a third of residents, the main reason being their preference for a council which does not cover a large area. One in ten residents would least prefer Option B, the main reasons being that it would not reflect local people’s views or identity. One in seven residents would least prefer Option C, the main reason being its perceived lack of efficiency and value for money.

• There is considerable variation by district with regards to the most preferred option. However, Option A is the least preferred in all districts with the exception of West Lancashire.

• Most Lancashire residents do not claim know a great deal about local government. Two in five residents claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, compared with three in five who know little or nothing at all.

• At the time of the interview, just one in seven claimed to know more than a little about the review of local government – nearly half had not heard of it. As might be expected, knowledge of the review tends to be least evident among social grades DE, younger people and those who have moved relatively recently to their area.

9

1. Attitudes to Local Governance Knowledge of Local Government The main purpose of MORI’s survey was to establish residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals for patterns of unitary local government. However, in order to understand residents’ views, a range of contextual questions were also asked – concerned with residents’ knowledge and understanding of local governance and their attitudes towards it. This context is important in its own right. But it is also important to understand whether, and how, residents’ views on the Committee’s preliminary proposals vary in the light of their knowledge and attitudes.

• Knowledge of local councils and the services they provide is low in all the counties MORI surveyed as part of this research. In Lancashire, only 4% claim to know a great deal about local government, while three fifths say they know not very much or nothing at all (62%).

• Knowledge varies across the twelve districts in Lancashire from 32% claiming to know a great deal or a fair amount in Lancaster and Rossendale to 49% in .

• There are wide variations by demographic groups. Generally speaking, the higher the social grade, the older the resident, and the longer the period of residency, the greater their knowledge about local councils.

• Those who are involved in the community are also likely to know more about local councils – 51% of those who feel involved with their community (a great deal or a fair amount) claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils, compared with 31% of those who do not feel so involved in the community.

Knowledge of Local Government

Q7 How much would you say you know about local councils and the services they provide?

A great deal A fair amount Not very much Nothing at all Don't know

2%4% 12%

Great deal/fair amount 37% 33% Not much/nothing at all 62%

50%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

11 Knowledge of Local Government - Demographic Analysis

Q7 How much would you say you know about local councils and the services they provide? % Great deal/fair amount

AB 50% C1 37% Social grade C2 34% DE 31%

18-34 26% Age 35-54 39% 55+ 42%

Involvement Great deal/fair amount 51% with community Not very m uch/not at all 31%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Knowledge of Local Government - District Comparisons

Q7 How much would you say you know about local councils and the services they provide? % Great deal % Fair amount % Total

Burnley 4% 41% 45% Chorley 2% 34% 36% Fylde 2% 31% 33% 4% 29% 33% Lancaster 2% 30% 32% Pendle 6% 38% 44% Pr es ton 7% 27% 34% Ribble Valley 4% 45% 49% Rossendale 3% 29% 32% 3% 32% 35% West Lancashire 4% 32% 36% Wyre 5% 35% 40%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

12 Satisfaction with Local Area MORI finds consistently in its research that residents’ attitudes to where they live relate to a range of perceptions about local governance such as satisfaction with local councils and the services they provide.

In Lancashire, most people are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. Five in six are satisfied (85%) compared with just one in twelve who are dissatisfied (8%).

• There are some differences in satisfaction between districts overall. The proportion feeling very or fairly satisfied with their area as a place to live varies from 76% in Hyndburn and Preston to 94% in Ribble Valley.

• There are also differences between demographic groups. Older people (75+) are more likely to feel satisfied with their area than younger people (aged 18-24) – 90% compared with 80%.

• Again, there is a clear relationship between satisfaction and residents’ age and social grade: 86% of those aged 55+ and 91% of those in social grades AB are satisfied with where they live (compared with 82% of those aged 18-34 and 81% of social grades DE).

• Similarly, those living in rural areas demonstrate greater levels of satisfaction than urban residents (91% compared with 84%).

• Those who have a sense of belonging to their district council area, county council area or county area, those who feel involved in their local community, and those who are satisfied with the services local councils provide, are also more likely to be satisfied with their local area.

Satisfaction with Local Area

Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this local area as a place to live?

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither/nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisifed

5%3% 7%

45%

40%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

13 Satisfaction with Local Area - District Comparisons

Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this local area as a place to live?

% Very satisfied % Fairly satisfied % Satisfied 34% 45% 79% Chorley 45% 46% 91% Fylde 52% 34% 86% Hyndburn 27% 49% 76% Lancaster 43% 42% 85% Pendle 47% 33% 80% Pr es ton 34% 42% 76% Ribble Valley 71% 23% 94% Rossendale 43% 39% 82% South Ribble 43% 50% 93% West Lancashire 54% 38% 92% Wyre 57% 33% 90%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Satisfaction with Local Area - Demographic Analysis

Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the local area as a place to live?

% Very/fairly satisfied

AB 91% C1 88% Social grade C2 84% DE 81%

18-34 82% Age 35-54 87% 55+ 86%

Length of Five years or less 85% residence in area Six years or more 85%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

14 Involvement in the Community

Most Lancashire residents do not feel very involved in their local community.

• Three in ten feel involved a great deal or fair amount (30%), compared to seven in ten who do not (69%). A quarter of residents do not feel at all involved (26%). Again, this relates to age and social grade, as on the previous issues, as well as to residents’ sense of belonging to their district council area, county council area and county area.

• There is also a relationship with the type of area in which residents live: 37% of those in a rural area feel involved with their community compared with 28% of those living in an urban area.

• There are significant differences between districts – the proportion who feel involved in their local community varies from 20% in South Ribble to 39% in Ribble Valley.

Involvement in the Community

Q5 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?

A great deal A fair amount Not very much Not at all Don't know

1% 6%

26% 24%

43%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

15 Involvement in the Community - District Comparisons

Q5 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?

% A great deal % A fair amount % Involved Burnley 2% 26% 28% Chorley 6% 23% 29% Fylde 6% 19% 25% Hyndburn 5% 22% 27% Lancaster 11% 27% 38% Pendle 4% 25% 29% Pr es ton 11% 21% 32% Ribble Valley 5% 34% 39% Rossendale 4% 22% 26% South Ribble 3% 17% 20% West Lancashire 6% 23% 29% Wyre 8% 28% 36%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Involvement in the Community – Demographic Analysis

Q5 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?

% Great deal/fair amount

AB 36% C1 34% Social grade C2 26% DE 27%

18-34 25% Age 35-54 31% 55+ 34%

Length of Five years or less 24% residence in area Six years or more 33%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

16 Residents’ Sense of Belonging Previous research has shown that there is usually a hierarchy in residents’ sense of belonging to various geographical areas (cf. MORI’s community research for the Boundary Committee for England, October 2003). Attachment is generally highest with the most local areas (local village or neighbourhood), and progressively lower with district council area and then county council area.

• In Lancashire, 60% of residents feel very or fairly strongly that they belong to their district council area compared to 51% to their county council area.

• As MORI usually finds, however, there is a greater attachment to the ‘county area’ than to the ‘county council area’. In Lancashire, 74% feel strongly attached to the county of Lancashire, compared with 51% who do so for the county council area. The distinction is even more evident in respect of the proportion of residents who feel they belong to an area ‘very strongly’: 18% for the district council area, 16% for the county council area and 41% for the county area.

• With the exception of Ribble Valley, this hierarchy is maintained for all districts. However, there are variations between districts in the absolute levels of strong attachment. For district council area, very or fairly strong attachment is held by between 51% of residents in Hyndburn and 68% in Rossendale, with Ribble Valley as an outlier at 85%. For county council area, this varies between 39% in Lancaster and 65% in Ribble Valley. For the county area, it varies between 66% in Pendle and 82% in Ribble Valley.

• Ribble Valley is the only district in which residents have a greater attachment or sense of belonging to their district council area (85%) than to the county of Lancashire (82%).

Sense of Belonging Q9/10 How strongly do you feel you belong to each of the following areas? Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly No opinion [Name of] district The county of Lancashire CC area council area Lancashire 8% 4% 6% 16% 6% 18% 8% 9% 17% 41%

26% 31% 35% 42% 33%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

17 Sense of Belonging - District Comparisons

Q9/10 How strongly do you feel you belong to each of the following areas?

District council area County Council area County of Lancashire % Very/fairly strongly 56% Burnley 49% 76% 64% Chorley 47% 81% 60% Fylde 54% 71% 51% Hyndburn 48% 73% 46% Lancaster 39% 67% 53% Pendle 44% 66% 60% Pr es ton 56% 73% 85% Ribble Valley 65% 82% 68% Rossendale 61% 70% 62% South Ribble 57% 79% 66% West Lancashire 64% 74% 65% Wyre 46% 77%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Older residents (aged 55+) are more likely to feel very or fairly strongly attached to their district council, county council and county areas (68%, 58% and 82% respectively). Those who feel involved in their community are also more likely to feel that they belong strongly to these areas (73%, 59% and 88% respectively). There are no significant variations by social grade.

18 2. Attitudes to Issues under Review Knowledge of Local Government Review Relatively few residents in Lancashire claim to know more than a little about the Committee’s review of local government – just 14% overall claim that they knew a great deal or fair amount before their MORI interview. But there are some significant variations across the county and between demographic groups:

• 27% of West Lancashire residents know a great deal or fair amount about the review, compared with just 4% of Burnley residents;

• Those in the higher social grades are much more likely to know about the review: 23% of those in social grades AB know a great deal or fair amount compared with just 8% of those in social grades DE;

• Older people are also more likely to know of the review: 19% of those aged 55+ claim to know a great deal or fair amount compared with 7% of 18-34 year olds; indeed, 67% of 18-24 year olds claim to have never heard of the review;

• Those who claim to know about local councils and the services they provide are more likely to know about the review (27% of those who know a great deal or fair amount about local councils also claim to know a great deal or fair amount about the review);

• Those who have lived in the area longer (six years or more) feel more informed about the review – 15% claim to know a great deal or fair amount compared with 10% of those who have lived in the area for five years or less.

Knowledge of Local Government Review

Q13 Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government?

A great deal A fair amount Just a little Heard of but know nothing about it Never heard of it Don't know

1%2% 12%

47% 28%

10%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

19 Knowledge of Local Government Review - District Analysis

Q13 Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government? % Great deal/ A great deal Fair amount fair amount Burnley 1% 3% 4% Chorley 2% 12% 14% Fylde 2% 13% 15% Hyndburn 11% 11% Lancaster 1% 9% 10% Pendle 1% 10% 11% Pr es ton 2% 10% 12% Ribble Valley 3% 13% 16% Rossendale 2% 13% 15% South Ribble 2% 10% 12% West Lancashire 4% 23% 27% Wyre 3% 13% 16%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Knowledge of Local Government Review - Demographic Analysis

Q13 Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government? % Great deal/fair amount

AB 23% C1 17% Social grade C2 9% DE 8%

18-34 7% Age 35-54 14% 55+ 19%

Length of Five years or less 10% residence in area Six years or more 15%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

20 Around half of residents have heard of the review (52%). Among those who have heard of it, newspapers (national or local) are the most common source of information about the review (mentioned by 60% of those who had heard of the review); other media such as TV and radio are mentioned by just over a quarter (28%) mostly through programmes and news on TV; friends and family by one in seven (15%); while leaflets (from the County Council, District Council, the Committee or other sources) are mentioned by 9%. Fewer have heard of the review from councillors or council staff, or from web sites.

Sources of information - Overview

Q14 Where did you hear about the review?

Newspapers 60%

TV\Radio\Posters 28%

Friends, family and 15% neighbours

Leaflets 9%

Councils 3%

Websites 1%

Base: 2,008 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who have heard of the review, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

21

3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government

The Committee put forward three patterns of unitary local government in Lancashire for consultation, while also remaining open to giving further consideration to alternative patterns:

• Option A: - A new unitary council would cover the majority of the existing County Council area; - Rochdale would be expanded to include part of Rossendale district; - Blackpool would be expanded to include the and Thornton- areas of Wyre district. • Option B: - Preston, South Ribble and Chorley districts, and parts of Fylde and Wyre districts would be combined; - with together with Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley districts and part of Rossendale district combined; - Blackpool with parts of Wyre and Fylde districts combined; - Lancaster City, and Barrow-in-Furness and districts from , combined; - Sefton would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire district; - Wigan would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire district; - Rochdale would be expanded to include part of Rossendale district. • Option C: - Preston, South Ribble and Chorley districts, and parts of Fylde and Wyre districts would be combined; - combined with Hyndburn and Ribble Valley districts; - Burnley and Pendle districts and part of Rossendale district combined; - Blackpool combined with parts of Wyre and Fylde districts; - Lancaster City combined with Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland districts from Cumbria; - Sefton would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire district; - Wigan would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire district; - Rochdale would be expanded to include part of Rossendale district.

23 Most and Least Preferred Options In the first part of this chapter, we compare residents’ overall preferences for the options for unitary local government boundaries put forward by the Committee. Later in the chapter, we look in more detail at each option.

• Overall, there is a balance of views between Options A, B and C in Lancashire, each being preferred by roughly a fifth of residents (22%, 19% and 18% respectively); 14% state, unprompted, that they would prefer no change.

• But there is more of a contrast among residents’ least favoured option – 36% nominate Option A as their least preferred option, compared with 10% and 15% respectively who least prefer Option B and C.

• Most residents are prepared to express a view on their preferred pattern of local government. Just under a quarter (23%) say they do not know what is their most preferred option – a higher figure than MORI has found in other counties under review. This rises to two fifths (39%) of residents who say they do not know their least preferred option: again a relatively high figure.

• Among residents who nominate an option not listed in the cards, the most common preference is an option which comprises Pendle and Ribble Valley (1%). Other preferences, each nominated by less than 1% of residents, are to not become part of Blackpool, to link with Craven/Yorkshire, and an option which comprises Ribble Valley, Burnley/ and Pendle.

Preferred Pattern of Local Government

Q15/16 Which of these options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? You can include any other option which is not listed on this card. And which would you least prefer?

Most preferred Least preferred

Option A 22% 36%

Option B 19% 10%

Option C 18% 15%

Pendle and Ribble Valley 1%

Other Option 1%

No change 14% 1%

Don't know 23% 39%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

24 When the data is analysed on a district basis, a clearer picture of residents’ preferences emerges. • Option A is the preferred option in just 3 of the 10 districts which, in their entirety, would form the large unitary council – Fylde, Preston, and (by some margin) West Lancashire. Option B emerges as a ‘close second’ in Fylde, while Ribble Valley residents are equally divided between Options A and C. Option A is also the preferred option in the two districts which would be split to form part of separate authorities under this option – Rossendale and Wyre. • Option B is the favoured option in Chorley and South Ribble, which would be combined with Preston to form a new unitary council, and in Lancaster, which would be combined with Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland districts from Cumbria. In South Ribble, Option A comes a ‘close second’. • Option C is the preferred option in Burnley and Pendle, which would be combined with part of Rossendale district, and in Hyndburn, which would be combined with Blackburn with Darwen and Ribble Valley. Of all the options, this change would provide these three districts with the smallest local council area. • The one district in which Option A is not the least preferred is West Lancashire, which would be split between Sefton and Wigan under both Options B and C.

Most Preferred Option - By District

Q15 Which of these options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district Council] area? You can include any other option which is not listed on this card. Option Option Option A B C Burnley 11 12 39 Chorley 17 38 10 Fylde 21 19 8 Hyndburn 22 15 38 Lancaster 23 31 16 Pendle 10 10 42 Preston 26 21 11 Ribble Valley 21 7 21 Rossendale 30 16 25 South Ribble 22 23 8 West Lancashire 41 11 3 Wyre 19 9 9 = Most preferred Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Least Preferred Option - By District

Q16 And which [of these options, if any] would you least prefer for [named district council] area? Option Option Option A B C Burnley 44 5 10 Chorley 51 4 18 Fylde 36 11 14 Hyndburn 46 7 14 Lancaster 47 7 16 Pendle 64 20 10 Preston 29 7 13 Ribble Valley 25 8 16 Rossendale 28 11 24 South Ribble 32 6 13 West Lancashire 16 26 21 Wyre 18 7 13 = Least preferred Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

25 Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues

Four issues in particular are identified by residents (from a prompted list) as being most important to take into account when deciding how to change the boundaries of council areas in the county: the quality of services, responding to local people’s wishes, accountability to local people and cost of services. No other factor is mentioned by more than 3% of residents.

Residents tend to identify these issues regardless of their demographic characteristics, although those in higher social grades (AB) are more likely to identify quality of services. Responding to local wishes is particularly important in West Lancashire (mentioned by 32%).

Changing Boundaries - Most Important Issues

Q24 When deciding on how to change the boundaries of council areas in Lancashire, which one of the things on this list, if any, do you think is the single most important issue to take into account?

% Prompted preferences

Quality of services 26%

Responding to people's wishes 22%

Being accountable to local people 19%

Cost of services 14%

Ease of contacting the council 3%

Size of population covered 3%

Sense of local community 3%

Level of information about the council 2% and its services

Historical or traditional place names 2%

Access to local councillors 1%

Other 1%

Don't think any of these apply 1%

Don't know/no opinion 4%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

26 Option A

The Committee’s Option A comprises a single unitary council based upon the majority of the County Council area, together with an expansion of the Blackpool and Rochdale council areas to include parts of Wyre and Rossendale districts respectively.

27 Residents’ reasons for preferring Option A focus primarily on efficiency and value for money (mentioned by just over a quarter – 27%), reflecting local people’s views and identity, and creating a strong council. On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on its geographical size as a disadvantage (mentioned by almost two thirds – 61%). However, other key factors, mentioned by around one fifth to a quarter each, are the view that it would not reflect local people’s views or identity, would not improve council services, and would be less efficient.

Reasons for Option A being Most Preferred Option

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

More efficient/better value for money 27%

It would reflect local people's views 20%

It would create a strong council 18%

It would reflect local identity 18%

It's my instinct/I just think it would be the 17% best

Base: 796 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option A being Least Preferred Option

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

I would not like my council to cover a large 61% area

It would not reflect local people's views 28%

It would not reflect local identity 22%

It would not improve council services 20%

The council would be less efficient/value 18% for money

Base: 1,312 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

28 Residents who favour Option A are quite firm about their preference – 33% feel very strongly and 47% fairly strongly (a total of 80% feeling very or fairly strongly).

Strength of Feeling for Preferring Option A

Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would you say you prefer this option compared to the other options provided on this showcard?

Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know

2%4%

15% 33%

47%

Base: 796 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option A are not generally particularly striking. But, compared with a county-wide preference by 22% of residents, Option A is more preferred among those who know a great deal or fair amount about the review (28%). There is also a greater preference for Option A among residents who feel they belong strongly to the county council area (25%) and to the county area (24%).

29 Preference for Option A - Demographic Analysis

Q15 Which of the options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? All 22%

AB 21%

C1 22%

C2 24%

DE 22%

18 - 3 4 21%

35-54 24%

55+ 21%

Residence in area for 5 years or less 21%

Residence in area for 6 years or more 22%

Satisfied with District Council services 23%

Dissatisfied with District Council services 25%

Satisfied with County Council services 25%

Dissatisfied with County Council services 22%

Urba n 22%

Rural 22%

Know great deal/fair amount about councils 23%

Know just a little/nothing at all about councils 22%

Know great deal/fair amount about review 28%

Know just a little/nothing at all about review 23%

Never heard of it/don't know 20%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

30 Option B

The Committee’s Option B comprises one unitary council to serve the districts of Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, and parts of Fylde and Wyre, and combining the remaining districts within Lancashire with neighbouring councils to create six new unitary council areas (see page 19 for details).

31 Residents’ reasons for preferring Option B focus primarily on their preference for a council which covers a small area (mentioned by 37%), along with the view that it would reflect local people’s views and local identity (20% each). On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the view that it would not reflect local people’s views or local identity.

Reasons for Option B being Most Preferred Option

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

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

It would reflect local people's views 20%

It would reflect local identity 20%

It's my instinct/I just think it would be the 18% best

The council would be more efficient/value 17% for money

It would improve council services 17%

Base: 643 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option B being Least Preferred Option

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

It would not reflect local people's views 28%

It would not reflect local identity 25%

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

It would not improve council services 21%

The council would be less efficient/value for 21% money

Base: 371 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

32 As with the other options, residents who favour Option B feel strongly about their preference, although they are less likely to say that they feel very strongly - around a fifth (18%) feel very strongly, compared with around a third for Options A and C. Three fifths (62%) feel fairly strongly (a total of 80% feeling very or fairly strongly).

Strength of Feeling for Option B

Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would you say you prefer this option compared to the other options provided on this showcard?

Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know

1%5% 18% 15%

62%

Base: 643 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Again, demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option B are not particularly striking. But, compared with a county-wide preference for Option B by 19% of residents, it is slightly more preferred among younger residents (22% of 18-34s), those who have lived in the area for five years or less (22%), and higher social grades (22% of ABs).

33 Preference for Option B - Demographic Analysis

Q15 Which of the options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? All 19%

AB 22%

C1 20%

C2 17%

DE 18%

18 - 3 4 22%

35-54 19%

55+ 16%

Residence in area for 5 years or less 22%

Residence in area for 6 years or more 18%

Satisfied with District Council services 19%

Dissatisfied with District Council services 20%

Satisfied with County Council services 19%

Dissatisfied with County Council services 23%

Urba n 19%

Rural 21%

Know great deal/fair amount about councils 20%

Know just a little/nothing at all about councils 19%

Know great deal/fair amount about review 19%

Know just a little/nothing at all about review 19%

Never heard of it/don't know 19%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

34 Option C

The Committee’s Option C comprises two unitary councils - one serving Preston, South Ribble, Chorley and parts of Fylde and Wyre; one serving Burnley, Pendle and part of Rossendale district; and combining the remaining districts within Lancashire with neighbouring councils to create six new unitary council areas (see page 19 for details).

35 Residents’ reasons for their preference for Option C focus primarily on their preference for a council which covers a small area (mentioned by 51%), along with the view that it would reflect local people’s views and local identity, be more accountable, and improve council services. On the other hand, those who least prefer this option focus primarily on the view that it would be less efficient and less good value for money (mentioned by 24%), and would not improve council services.

Reasons for Option C being Most Preferred Option

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

I would like my council to cover a small 51% area

It would reflect local people's views 32%

It would reflect local identity 21%

The council would be more accountable 21%

It would improve council services 20%

Base: 699 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Reasons for Option C being Least Preferred Option

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

The council would be less efficient/value for 24% money

It would not improve council services 19%

It's my instinct/I just think it would be the 16% worst

It's the worst of the available options 16%

I would not like my council to cover a large 15% area

Base: 549 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who least prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

36 As with the other options, those residents who favour Option C feel similarly strongly about their preference – 32% feel very strongly and 50% fairly strongly (a total of 82% feeling very or fairly strongly).

Strength of Feeling for Option C

Q19 Thinking about your preferred option, how strongly would your say you prefer this option compared to the other options provided on this showcard?

Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don't know

5% 2% 11% 32%

50%

Base: 699 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who most prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

Again, demographic distinctions among those who prefer Option C are not generally particularly striking. But, compared with a county-wide preference for Option C by 18% of residents, there is a marginally greater preference among lower social grades (22% of DEs) and those who do not have a sense of belonging to the county council area (20%).

37 Preference for Option C - Demographic Analysis

Q15 Which of the options, if any, would you most prefer for the [name of district council] area? All 18%

AB 15%

C1 16%

C2 16%

DE 22%

18 - 3 4 19%

35-54 18%

55+ 16%

Residence in area for 5 years or less 18%

Residence in area for 6 years or more 17%

Satisfied with District Council services 17%

Dissatisfied with District Council services 19%

Satisfied with County Council services 17%

Dis s a tis fie d with C o un ty C o unc il s e rv ic e s 18%

Urba n 18%

Rural 15%

Know great deal/fair amount about Councils 19%

Know just a little/nothing at all about Councils 17%

Know great deal/fair amount about review 13%

Know just a little/nothing at all about review 17%

Never heard of it/don't know 19%

Base: 3,676 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

38 4. Preferred New Council Name The Committee also wished to consult on possible names for any new unitary councils. Those respondents who preferred each option were asked about a number of names in relation to that option. They were also invited to suggest an alternative name if they wished. Under Option A, ‘Lancashire’ is the clear choice for residents who would be included within the large unitary council area (ranging from 95% of Burnley and West Lancashire residents to 42% of Wyre residents). Wyre residents favour ‘Blackpool and Fleetwood’ and ‘Blackpool and West Wyre’ equally (20%) as the name for the expanded area, with ‘Blackpool Coastal’ proving less popular (6%). ‘Rochdale and South Rossendale’ is the name preferred by Rossendale residents for the expanded Rochdale Council area (9%), although they are more likely to say that they ‘don’t know’ (11%) than to choose this option.

Preferred Names – Option A

Q20 Which one of these names for the new council for this area, if any, would you prefer? Or is there any other name that you would prefer which is not on this card?

Burn- Chor- Fylde Hynd- Lan- Pendle Preston Ribble Rossen- South West Wyre ley ley burn caster Valley dale Ribble Lancs

%%%%%%%%%%%%

OPTION A Lancashire 95 92 58 90 87 85 88 92 72 90 95 42

Blackpool000000000002

Blackpool & Fleetwood0020000000020

Blackpool Coastal 5 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Blackpool & West Wyre00100040001020

Rochdale & Whitworth000000003000

Greater Rochdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Rochdale & South Rossendale000004009000

Other 028010450012

None of these 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 9 0 0 0

Don’t know 6 10 24 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 7 3

Base: 796 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who prefer Option A, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004

39 Preferred Names – Option B Q21 Which one of these names for the new Council for this area, if any, would you prefer? Or is there any other name that you would prefer which is not on this card?

Burn- Chor- Fylde Hynd- Lan- Pendle Preston Ribble Rossen- South West Wyre ley ley burn caster Valley dale Ribble Lancs %%%%%%%%%%%% OPTION B Blackburn & East Lancashire 7 0 0 21 0 4 0 0 14 0 0 0 Blackpool, Wyre & Fylde0180000000029 CentralLancashire 27 26 8 13 9 0 39 32 10 36 10 0 East Lancashire 35 2 4 27 0 46 0 10 35 1 2 0 Fylde Coast0 0140 0 0 2 0 0 0 041 Fylde Coastal0 0160 0 0 0 0 0 0 019 Greater Blackburn 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater Blackpool 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater Preston24103002970743 Greater Rochdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Greater Sefton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Greater Wigan000000000090 Lakeland with Furness & Lancaster 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lancashire East 13 0 1 16 1 24 0 22 11 0 0 0 Mid Lancashire 4 19 2 5 2 16 8 6 8 5 3 4 Bay0000270000000 Preston, South Ribble & Chorley 0 37 3 0 0 0 18 0 0 45 0 0 Rochdale & South Rossendale000000004000 Sefton 000000000020 Sefton & Ormskirk000000000090 Sefton & West Lancashire 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 South Cumbria & Lancaster0000240000000 Westmorland000070000000 Wigan 000000000080 Wigan & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 Wigan & South Lancashire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 Other 4182553145000 None of these 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 Don’t know 6 10 24 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 7 3 Base: 643 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who prefer Option B, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004 Of the districts that would comprise the unitary council centred on Preston under Option B, South Ribble and Chorley residents prefer ‘Preston, South Ribble and Chorley’, whereas Preston residents favour ‘Central Lancashire’ (with ‘Greater Preston’ as second choice). Residents in districts which would join Blackburn with Darwen council area (Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley and Rossendale) mostly favour ‘East Lancashire’. Fylde residents prefer ‘Fylde Coastal’ or ‘Fylde Coast’ for the expanded Blackpool area, whereas Wyre residents also favour ‘Fylde Coast’ but have ‘Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde’ as their second preference. Lancaster residents prefer ‘Morecambe Bay’ for their new council area, although ‘South Cumbria and Lancaster’ is also popular. West Lancashire residents favour ‘Sefton and West Lancashire’ for the area that joins Sefton, and ‘Wigan and Skelmersdale’ for the area that joins Wigan, although the levels of preference here are low.

40 Preferred Names – Option C Q22 Which one of these names for the new Council for this area, if any, would you prefer? Or is there any other name that you would prefer which is not on this card? Burn- Chor- Fylde Hynd- Lan- Pendle Preston Ribble Rossen- South West Wyre ley ley burn caster Valley dale Ribble Lancs %%%%%%%%%%%% OPTION C Blackburn & Ribble 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 Blackburn & the Valley 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 Blackburn Valley 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blackpool, Wyre & Fylde 0030000000038 Burnley, Pendle & Ross490010490058000 Central Lancashire 9 13 28 12 10 1 27 8 6 17 0 3 East Lancashire 7 0 0 19 0 33 0 9 19 0 0 0 Fylde Coast0 0250 2 0 0 0 0 0 048 Fylde Coastal0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 Greater Blackburn 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater Burnley2300003001000 Greater Preston01360002730500 Lakeland with Furness & Lancaster 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mid Lancashire 2 11 5 8 3 1 14 8 0 0 0 0 Morecambe Bay0000170000000 Preston, South Ribble & Chorley 0 45 6 0 0 1 12 0 0 52 0 0 Rochdale & South Rossendale100000003000 Rochdale & Whitworth000000001000 Sefton 0000000000120 Sefton & Ormskirk0000000000240 Sefton & West Lancashire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 South Cumbria & Lancaster0000210000000 South East Lancashire000502304000 Westmorland000050010000 Wigan 050000000000 Wigan & Skelmersdale000000000060 Wigan & West Lancashire000000000060 Other 0 4 9 12 2 2 3 18 3 4 0 0 None of these 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 5 9 0 Other 9 7 3 8 10 6 15 2 7 17 7 0 Base: 699 Lancashire County Council residents 18+, who prefer Option C, 1 December 2003 to 23 February 2004 Of the districts that would comprise the unitary council centred on Preston under Option C, South Ribble and Chorley favour ‘Preston, South Ribble and Chorley’, while Preston residents are divided between ‘Central Lancashire’ and ‘Greater Preston’. Fylde residents who would be included in this area prefer ‘Central Lancashire’. Of the districts that would combine with Blackburn with Darwen, Ribble Valley residents clearly favour ‘Blackburn and Ribble’, while for Hyndburn residents this option comes a close second to ‘East Lancashire’. Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale clearly prefer the name ‘Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale’ for the new unitary area that combines these districts, while ‘Fylde Coast’ is the most popular choice among those Wyre and Fylde residents who would be joined with Blackpool. Lancaster residents prefer ‘South Cumbria and Lancaster’, although the alternatives of ‘Morecambe Bay’ and ‘Lakeland, Furness and Lancaster’ come fairly close behind. West Lancashire residents favour ‘Sefton and West Lancashire’ for the area which would be combined with Sefton, but do not express a clear preference for the area which would be combined with Wigan. 41

Appendices

1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Sub-group Definitions 4. Marked-up County-wide Questionnaire

43

Appendix 1 – Option Showcards

The following ‘showcards’ were used during the interview to illustrate the options upon which the Committee was consulting. For technical reasons, the layout varies slightly from the actual ‘showcards’ used by interviewers, on which all the information for an option was contained on one side of A4.

45

J20362/5 HIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option A

South Lakeland District

6 Craven District M

Morecombe Lancaster Lancaster, Ribble Valley, Pendle, Burnley, Hyndburn, Preston Fylde, South Ribble, Chorley, West Lancashire and part of Wyre and part of Rossendale Districts combined

Fleetwood

Cleveleys Blackpool and part of Wyre District combined Br adfor d Nelson Dis tr ict Blackpool M55 5 Burnley M6 Preston Lytham Calderdale Dis Black bur n w ith Dar w e n 6 M Rochdale and part of Chorley Rossendale District combined Rochdale

Bury District 62 Bolton District M Sefton District Oldham District Skelmersdale Middleton 8 5 M Wigan District

Manchester District

Salford Dis trict District

A: Lancashire County Council would cover the majority of the existing county council area: Population 1,051,400 B: Rochdale Borough Council would be expanded to include part of Rossendale Borough: Population: 212,600 C: Blackpool Borough Council would be expanded to include the Fleetwood and Thornton- Cleveleys areas of Wyre District: Population: 218,500 Services: The new councils would each have responsibility for delivering all local government services in their area. Responsibility for major land use planning would be shared between the authorities. There would be a new Fire Authority for the whole of Lancashire and there would be no change to the area covered by the Police Authority. Community Representation: Would represent the interests of all communities within Lancashire, and reflect the needs of local people throughout the county. Estimated costs of ‘being in business’*: Are predicted to be around £12.9 million per year (currently £38.7 million per year). Note: The costs of ‘being in business’ are those incurred by a local authority regardless of the level of services required or delivered. They are only a small proportion of the total costs. Lancashire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes.

Note *Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland (in Cumbria) have not been included in the current costs for Lancashire

J20362/5 ASSHIREHIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option B

Allerdale District Teesdale District Copeland District

Richmondshire District Kendal

Barrow-in-Furness, South Lakeland and Lancaster Districts combined

Ulverston

Barrow In Furness 6 M

Lancaster Craven District

Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley and part of Rosse nda le Districts com bine d Fleetwood Preston, South Ribble, Chorley and part of Wyre and part of Clitheroe Colne Fylde Districts com bine d Br adfor d Dis tr ict Blackpool and part of Blackpool M55 Wyre and part of Fylde 65 Burnley Districts com bine d M Preston Accrington Lytham Calderdale District

6 Darwen Bacup M Rochdale and part of Chorley Rossendale Districts combined Sefton and part of West Rochdale 62 Lancashire Districts combined Bur y Dis tr ictM Skelmersdale Bolton Dis tr ict Oldham District 8 5 M Atherton

Aintree Leigh Wigan and part of West Bootle Lancashire Districts combined High Pe ak Dis tr ict

Liverpool District

A Preston, South Ribble and Chorley Districts and part of Fylde and Wyre Districts would be combined: Population: 384,400 B Blackburn with Darwen Borough, Burnley, Pendle, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Districts and part of Rossendale District combined: Population 510,100 C Blackpool Borough with parts of Wyre and Fylde Districts combined: Population: 270,600 D Lancaster City, and Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland districts from Cumbria combined: Population 308,200

E Sefton Borough would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire District combined: Population: 338,900

F Wigan would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire District: Population: 353,900

G Rochdale would be expanded to include part of Rossendale Borough: Population: 212,600 Services:The new councils would each have responsibility for delivering all local authority services in their area.

Responsibility for major land use planning would be shared between all the authorities. There would be new police and fire authorities for the whole of Lancashire and Cumbria.

Community Representation: The new authorities would represent the interests of all the communities in their council areas and take into account the needs of local residents in their authorities.

Estimated costs of ‘being in business’*: Are predicted to be around £23.1 million per year (currently £38.7 million per year)**

Lancashire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes. The South Cumbria & Lancaster authority would be associated with Lancashire for ceremonial and related purposes.

Note * The costs of ‘being in business’ are those incurred by a local authority regardless of the level of services required or delivered. They are only a small proportion of the total costs.

Note **Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland (in Cumbria) have not been included in the current costs for Lancashire J20362/5 HIRE OPTIONS CARD: Option C

Allerdale District Teesdale District Eden District Copeland District

Richmondshire District Kendal

Barrow-in-Furness, South Lakeland and Lancaster Districts combined

Ulverston

Craven District Barrow In Furness 6 M

Lancaster Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Districts combined

Burnley, Pendle and part of Fleetwood Rosse nda le Districts com bine d Preston, South Ribble, Chorley and part of Wyre and part of Clitheroe Colne Fylde Districts combined Br adfor d Dis tr ict Blackpool and part of Blackpool M55 Wyre and part of Fylde 65 Burnley Districts com bine d M Preston Accrington Lytham Calderdale District Bacup 6 Darw en M Rochdale and part of Southport Chorley Rossendale Districts combined Sefton and part of West Rochdale 62 Lancashire Districts combined Bury Dis tr ictM Skelmersdale Bolton Dis tr ict Oldham District 8 5 M Atherton

Aintree Leigh Tameside District Wigan and part of West Bootle Lancashire Districts combined Hig h Pe ak Dis tr ict Wirral District District Warrington

A Preston, South Ribble and Chorley Districts and part of Fylde and Wyre Districts combined: Population: 384,400 B Blackburn with Darwen Borough combined with Hyndburn and Ribble Valley: Population 272,900 C Burnley and Pendle Districts and part of Rossendale District combined: Population 237,200 D Blackpool Borough combined with parts of Wyre and Fylde Districts: Population 270,600 E Lancaster City combined with Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland Districts from Cumbria: Population 308,200 F Sefton Borough would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire District: Population 338,900 G Wigan would be expanded to include part of West Lancashire District: Population 353,900 H Rochdale would be expanded to include part of Rossendale Borough: Population: 212,600 Services: The new councils would each have responsibility for delivering all local authority services in their area. Responsibility for major land use planning would be shared between all the authorities. There would be new police and fire authorities for the whole of Lancashire and Cumbria.

Community Representation: The new authorities would represent the interests of all the communities in their council areas and take into account the needs of local residents in their authorities. Estimated costs of ‘being in business’*: Are predicted to be £25.9 million per year (currently £38.7 million per year)** Lancashire would be retained for ceremonial and related purposes. The South Cumbria & Lancaster authority would be associated with Lancashire for ceremonial and related purposes.

Note * The costs of ‘being in business’ are those incurred by a local authority regardless of the level of services required or delivered. They are only a small proportion of the total costs.

Note **Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland (in Cumbria) have not been included in the current costs for Lancashire Appendix 2 - Research Methodology Overview

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

Within each two-tier district in Lancashire at least 300 quantitative face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 3,676 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the county:

n

Burnley 304 Chorley 307 Fylde 300 Hyndburn 302 Lancaster 301 Pendle 300 Preston 338 Ribble Valley 300 Rossendale 307 South Ribble 302 West Lancashire 315 Wyre 300

Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age and gender, and for aggregate county findings by the population size of each individual district. Full computer tabulations have been provided in a separate volume. District summary reports and tabulations have also been published separately. Interpretation of the Data

It should be remembered that a sample, not the entire population of Lancashire, has been interviewed. Consequently, all results are subject to margins of error, which means that not all differences are statistically significant. In addition, care should be taken in interpreting the results, because of the small number of respondents in some sub-groups, to ensure that the findings are statistically significant.

Unless otherwise stated, the base size for each question is provided. Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of ‘don’t know/not stated’ response categories. An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than half of one per cent, but not zero.

Ideally, every subgroup base will be at least 100 to allow apparent differences between subgroups to be taken as real. Where the base number is very low (<50) it is not advisable to make any inferences about that sub-group.

53 Statistical Reliability

The sample tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given in the table below. Strictly speaking, these only apply to a perfect random sample, although in practice good quality quota samples have been found to be as accurate. The following shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed. As indicated, sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the size of the percentage results.

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50% Base: ±± ±

Size of sample on which survey result is based

3,676 (e.g. total number of interviews in Lancashire) 1 2 2

3,000 1 2 2

2,500 1 2 2

1,500 2 2 3

1,000 2 3 3

750 2 3 4 c.300 (e.g. total number of interviews in each district) 3 5 6

100 6 9 10

50 8 13 14

Source: MORI

54 For example, on a question where 50% of the people in a weighted sample of 300 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary more than around 6 percentage points, plus or minus, from a complete coverage of the entire population using the same procedures. In other words, results would lie in the range 44% to 56%, but would be most likely to be 50%, the actual finding.

Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results from different parts of the sample, and between two samples. A difference, in other words, must be of at least a certain size to be considered statistically significant. The following table is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons.

Differences required for significance at or near these percentages

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

Base: ±± ±

Size of sample on which survey result is based

750 and 750 3 5 5 c.300 and c.300 (e.g. when comparing between districts) 5 7 8

250 and 250 5 8 9

150 and 150 7 10 11

100 and 100 8 13 14

50 and 50 12 18 20

Source: MORI

55

Appendix 3 – Social Grade and Area

Social Grade

Social Grades are standard classifications used in research, and are based on occupation of the chief income earner. They are defined as follows:

• A Professionals such as doctors, surgeons, solicitors or dentists; chartered people like architects; fully qualified people with a large degree of responsibility such as senior editors, senior civil servants, town clerks, senior business executives and managers, and high ranking grades of the Armed Services.

• B People with very responsible jobs such as university lecturers, hospital matrons, heads of local government departments, middle management in business, qualified scientists, bank managers, police inspectors, and upper grades of the Armed Services.

• C1 All others doing non-manual jobs; nurses, technicians, pharmacists, salesmen, publicans, people in clerical positions, police sergeants/constables, and middle ranks of the Armed Services.

• C2 Skilled manual workers/craftsmen who have served apprenticeships; foremen, manual workers with special qualifications such as long distance lorry drivers, security officers, and lower grades of Armed Services.

• D Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers and mates of occupations in the C2 grade and people serving apprenticeships; machine minders, farm labourers, bus and railway conductors, laboratory assistants, postmen, door- to-door and van salesmen.

• E Those on lowest levels of subsistence including pensioners, casual workers, and others with minimum levels of income.

Area

Urban and rural classifications are based on the population density of the ward where the sample point is located. Wards with less than 2.8 persons per hectare are classified as rural, and wards with more than 2.8 people per hectare are classified as urban wards.

57

Appendix 4 - Marked-up County- wide Questionnaire

59