community research in chorley borough council area 2003 · community research in chorley borough...

Community Research in Chorley BoroughCouncil Area 2003

Research Study Conducted forThe Boundary Committee for England

October 2003

Contents

Introduction 1

Executive Summary 4

Local Communities 6Defining Communities 6

Identifying Communities 6

Identity with the Local Community in the Chorley BoroughCouncil Area 7

Overall Identity 7

Effective Communities 9

Involvement 13

Affective Communities 15

Bringing Effective and Affective Communities Together 16

Local Authority Communities 18Belonging to Chorley Borough Council Area 18

Belonging to Lancashire County Council Area 22

Knowledge and Attitudes towards Local Governance 25Knowledge of Local Governance 25

Involvement with Local Governance 26

Administrative Boundary Issues 26

Appendices1. Methodology – Quantitative

2. Methodology - Qualitative

3. Sub-Group Definitions

4. Place Name Gazetteer

5. Qualitative Topic Guide

6. Marked-up Questionnaire

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

1

IntroductionResearch AimsThis report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI SocialResearch Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England (referredto in this report as "The Committee") in the Chorley Borough Council area. Theaim of this research is to establish the patterns of community identity in the area.

Survey CoverageMORI has undertaken research in all 44 two-tier district or borough council areasin the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. Theresearch covers two-tier local authority areas only; the results may howeveridentify issues which overlap with adjacent areas. Reports and data for othertwo-tier areas are provided separately.

Source: MORI

Chorley Borough Council (Lancashire CC)

Data is available from two-tierauthorities in these CountyCouncil areas:CheshireDurhamCumbriaLancashireNorthumberlandNorth Yorkshire

Key:BC = Borough CouncilDC = District CouncilCC = County CouncilMBC = Metropolitan BoroughCouncil

Chorley BC(Lancashire CC)

Wigan MBC

South Ribble BC(Lancashire CC)

West Lancashire DC(Lancashire CC) Bolton MBC

Blackburnwith Darwen

BC

MethodologyBoth quantitative and qualitative research has been carried out in the ChorleyBorough Council area, as in each two-tier district council area in the North Westregion.

Quantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents think, bymeasuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions in the context of aninterview, rather than holding an in-depth discussion on the issues involved. Itprovides statistically robust data.


2

Within each two-tier district or borough council area, at least 300 quantitativeface-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 19th June and 31st

August 2003. Some 3,722 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities inthe Lancashire County Council area, with 308 interviews being conducted in theChorley Borough Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work statususing 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the knowndemographic profile of each district or borough council area by age and gender,and for aggregate county, regional and overall findings by the population size ofeach individual district or borough council area. Full computer tabulations havebeen provided separately.

Qualitative research helps probe the thinking processes and feelings ofresidents, and attempts to answer the question as to ‘why?’ residents might feelthe way they do.

In the Chorley Borough Council area, a qualitative discussion group was held toestablish how residents feel about their local community. The findings from thisgroup were analysed within the context of the findings from discussion groups inthe other 43 district or borough council areas under consideration by this study.Discussion groups do not seek to offer statistical validity from a representativesample, but seek to explore attitudes and opinions in greater depth than thequantitative research allows. It should also be borne in mind that, in order to getan overview of the in-depth feelings in each area as well as explore linkagesacross the region, only one discussion group was held in each district or boroughcouncil area. The findings from each group should therefore be viewed in thecontext of the other discussion groups which have taken place, as well as thequantitative findings. This is because the findings from participants from justone discussion group may be unrepresentative of general opinion, and misleadingif viewed out of context.

Report StructureThis report provides an overview of the findings from the research for theChorley Borough Council area. Individual summary reports for the researchconducted within each of the other two-tier authorities in the North West regionhave been issued under separate cover.

Publication of the DataAs part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in thisreport is subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refusedon the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings.


3

Contact DetailsThe research was carried out by MORI for COI Communications, acting onbehalf of The Boundary Committee for England.

Simon Atkinson, Research Director, MORIEmma Holloway, Senior Research Executive, MORIJaime Rose, Senior Research Executive, MORINeil Wholey, Senior Research Executive, MORI

79-81 Borough RoadLondon SE1 1FY

Tel: 020 7347 3000Fax: 020 7347 3800

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


4

Executive Summary

Chorley Borough Council Area• Residents in the Chorley Borough Council area identify most strongly

with their local neighbourhood/village, and their town/nearest town.They show less identity with the administrative areas of the local two-tier councils. This is not an unusual finding, as people will generallyidentify with the immediate area where they have made their home,rather than a large geographical area.

• The Chorley Borough Council area is fairly rural, with activityconcentrated on the town of Chorley itself. When asked about towns,seven in ten residents most associate themselves with the town ofChorley, with nearly one in ten associating with Preston.

• "Effective Communities" are the sense of place created by visitingpractical locations which cater for shopping or leisure needs, workplace, or where parents take their children to school. Those in lowersocial grades are more concentrated around visiting Chorley, especiallyfor shopping, whilst Preston is a more frequent destination for ABs,and C1C2s.

• As has been found in other district and borough council areas nearby,Preston is a local focal point - especially for clothes and householdgoods shopping. However, few residents actually feel that Preston isthe area or community they most belong to. This suggests that it maybe a good place to visit, but does not form lasting community ties.

• "Affective Communities" describes the sense of place created byresidents forming an emotional attachment to a community. Identitywith the local neighbourhood is naturally stronger for those who takepart in community activities.

• Overall, three quarters of Chorley Borough Council residents feel theybelong to a local area or community within this council area. This isfairly high in comparison with other district or borough council areasin the Lancashire County Council area, and may be linked to the drawof Chorley for food shopping and leisure and sporting activities.


5

Interpreting the Findings• Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative research should be taken in

isolation of the other, and nor should the findings of one district,borough, county or region be taken in isolation of the overallperspective provided by research in other areas. Just as residentsthemselves are at the centre of a number of different communities, sothis research is at the centre of a wider body of research that providescontext and a sense of place to the individual findings for each area.

©MORI/18710Simon AtkinsonEmma Holloway

Jaime RoseNeil Wholey


6

Local Communities

Defining CommunitiesCommunities, in the context of this research, are a sense of place. The strength ofthis sense of place is related to the involvement residents have in theircommunities, whether with people in their own immediate neighbourhood, orwith places further afield through, for example, shopping trips or work.

For residents there are a number of different and overlapping communities:

• Administrative Communities: the sense of place created by localcouncil administrative boundaries.

• Effective Communities: the sense of place created by visitingpractical locations which cater for shopping or leisure needs, or are aplace of work, or where parents take their children to school.

• Affective Communities: the sense of place created by residentsforming an emotional attachment to a community. This is defined aswhere residents feel they most belong, the town or area they mostidentify with, and if they met someone from outside their region, wherethey might say they came from.

The aim of this study is to gain insight into the effective and affectivecommunities of residents in the Chorley Borough Council area, and howthese might relate to administrative boundaries.

Identifying CommunitiesMultifaceted communities require a multifaceted approach to identifying them.In both the qualitative and quantitative research, residents were asked to identifythe communities in which they felt they belonged and, from the differentperspectives of these methodologies, to obtain a rounded picture of thesecommunities. Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative research shouldtherefore be taken in isolation of the other, and nor should the findings of onedistrict, borough, county or region be taken in isolation of the overall perspectiveprovided by research in other areas. Just as residents themselves are at the centreof a number of different communities, so this research is at the centre of a widerbody of research that provides context and a sense of place to the individualfindings for each area.


7

Identity with the Local Communityin the Chorley Borough CouncilArea

Overall IdentityPast research conducted by MORI shows that residents often feel they belongmost strongly with the community that forms their own immediateneighbourhood or village, with a slightly less strong identity with their town as awhole or the nearest town. In the Chorley Borough Council area two in fiveresidents (40%) feel that they very strongly belong to their neighbourhood orvillage, with nearly half feeling they fairly strongly belong (47%). Across all thequalitative groups the discussions centred around local geographical areas. In theChorley Borough Council discussion group, respondents identified with theirimmediate neighbourhood or village. Some respondents also identified withareas where they used to live, or areas where they work or spend their leisuretime, such as Preston.

Source: MORI

Belonging to Neighbourhood, Village or Town

40%

47%

12%

23%

51%

22%

4%*% *% *%

Very strongly Fairly strongly No opinionNot verystrongly

a. This neighbourhood (asked in urban areas)/this village or the nearestvillage (asked in rural areas)

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

Q22 How strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the following areas?

Not at allstrongly

Base: 308 Chorley Borough Council Residents 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003


8

The table below shows the differences across the two-tier council areas in theLancashire County Council area. Chorley residents show a high level ofattachment to their neighbourhood, both in absolute terms and relative to otherauthorities.

Q22 How strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the followingareas?

Verystrongly

Fairlystrongly

Not verystrongly

Not at allstrongly

No opinion

Base: c.300 residents in each two-tierauthority

% % % % %

This neighbourhood(asked in urban areas)/village/or the nearestvillage (asked in ruralareas)

Burnley BC 33 47 13 6 1Chorley BC 40 47 12 * *Fylde BC 40 39 17 2 2Hyndburn BC 12 54 27 1 6Lancaster City Council 38 44 14 3 1Pendle BC 40 41 16 2 1Preston City Council 45 39 11 4 1Ribble Valley BC 36 42 16 2 4Rossendale BC 39 41 17 3 1South Ribble BC 36 41 16 4 3West Lancashire DC 42 38 17 3 *Wyre BC 31 43 21 3 2

This town (asked inurban areas)/thenearest town (asked inrural areas)

Burnley BC 37 44 13 5 2Chorley BC 23 51 22 4 *Fylde BC 26 44 26 3 2Hyndburn BC 13 56 26 1 4Lancaster City Council 27 37 24 5 8Pendle BC 31 37 20 11 2Preston City Council 41 47 10 1 1Ribble Valley BC 17 44 29 7 3Rossendale BC 31 47 19 3 1South Ribble BC 24 48 21 5 1West Lancashire DC 34 38 24 4 1Wyre BC 14 39 31 15 2

Source: MORI


9

Effective CommunitiesFor the purpose of this research we have defined "Effective Communities" as thesense of place created by visiting practical locations which cater for shopping orleisure needs, work place, or where parents take their children to school. In thequantitative survey, respondents were asked to identify, unprompted, the townsor areas they visit for practical reasons, which therefore form the basis of theireffective communities.

Main food shopping: Four in five residents (79%) do their main food shoppinginside the Chorley Borough Council area, the most popular destination being thetown of Chorley itself (71%). Analysis by social grade shows that there are nosignificant differences in terms of the types of resident who uses local shoppingareas.

Leyland (in the South Ribble Borough Council area) is the most populardestination outside the Chorley Borough Council area, but is still only visited bysix percent of residents for their food shopping. Again there is no difference bysocial grade.

Longer term residents, who have lived in the Chorley Borough Council area forover 3 years, are more likely to visit the area for their food shopping (80%),compared to newer residents (64%).

Food shopping in Chorley Borough Council area is also higher among those wholive in an urban location (84% vs. 66% of rural dwellers). This is likely to be veryclosely linked to geography, with rural residents more likely to move across thedistrict boundaries than those living in the urban centre of Chorley.

Clothes and household goods shopping: One third of residents generally staywithin Chorley for clothes and household goods shopping (33%). Residentsfrom lower social grades are more likely to shop here, with over half of DEs1

(55%) and two in five C2s2 (41%) citing Chorley as their main destination,compared to just 25% of C1s3 and 16% of ABs4. Reflective of this, those stayinglocally are less likely to own a car (62% vs. 28% of those with a car in thehousehold).

For clothes and household good shopping, Preston is an even more populardestination with 34% visiting this location. Contrasting with Chorley, Preston isleast likely to be visited by DE residents (20%), and is more popular with ABs(37%) and C1s and C2s (40% each).

Bolton is the next most popular destination, with about one in ten (12%)residents visiting this town for clothes and household goods shopping. 1 DE: semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, the unemployed and state pensioners.2 C2: skilled manual workers.3 C1: skilled non-manual workers.4 AB: professionals such as doctors, senior managers/executives, upper grades of services - i.e.those on the highest income.


10

Leisure and Sporting Activities: Three in five residents mainly stay in theChorley Borough Council area for leisure and sporting activities (59%). The townof Chorley is the most popular destination (55%), especially among 25-34 yearolds (67%) and lower social grades. Seven in ten DEs visit Chorley for thispurpose (69%), compared to half of ABs and C1s (52% and C2s (50%). Prestonis visited by about one in seven (15%) residents whilst one in ten cite Bolton asthe town they mainly go to for their leisure and sporting activities (10%).

Places of work: Approaching three in five of our sample in the ChorleyBorough Council area are in full or part time work (58%). Of those in work,around two in five stay in the Chorley Borough Council area (38%). More thanhalf of female workers (55%) work locally, with men significantly more likely towork in a variety of locations (just 23% stay within the area). The next mostpopular work places are Preston (17% of people work there) and Leyland (9%).

A similar picture is seen when residents as a whole were asked where other adultsin the household work. It should be noted that one in five households have noother adult in the household (21%), or no other adult who is working (20%).One in six households have another adult who works in the Chorley BoroughCouncil area (17%), and a significant minority have other adults who work inPreston (12%).

School: Three in ten of our sample (28%) in the Chorley Borough Council areahave school aged children (aged 5-16) living in their household. Four in fiveparents (84%) send their children to school within the Chorley Borough Councilarea, the most common mention being Chorley itself (65%). A significantminority have children who attend schools in Leyland (13%).


11

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

% of residents identifyingtown or area (where at least3%)

Q4: Mainfood

shopping

Q5: Shopfor clothes& house-

hold goods

Q11: Leisure& sportingactivities

Q9: Mainplace ofwork (1)

Q10: Otheradults

place ofwork (2)

Q7: Child’sschool (3)

Base: Chorley Borough CouncilResidents

(308) (308) (308) (163) (171) (82)

% % % % % %

Inside Council AreaAdlington * 0 1 1 1 3Chorley 71 33 55 35 27 65Clayton-Le-Woods 5 0 * 0 0 3Croston 0 0 0 0 0 5

Outside Council AreaBlackburn 1 1 2 4 4 0Bolton 2 12 10 1 4 1Horwich 2 * 3 0 0 1Leyland 6 0 3 9 7 13Liverpool 0 0 0 4 1 0Manchester 0 8 2 1 8 0Preston 4 34 15 17 21 4Skelmersdale 1 0 0 2 4 0Wigan * 4 3 2 5 0

Don't know/not stated 4 1 4 3 3 0No particular area * 0 1 7 2 0None/nowhere 0 0 7 0 0 0

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

Source: MORI


12

The table below builds on the data provided on the previous page, bysummarising the towns identified in the above table into the different two- orsingle- tier authorities in which they reside.

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

% of residents identifyingtown or area (where at least3%)

Q4: Mainfood

shopping

Q5: Shopfor clothes& house-

hold goods

Q11: Leisure& sportingactivities

Q9: Mainplace ofwork (1)

Q10: Otheradults

place ofwork (2)

Q7: Child’sschool (3)

Base: Chorley Borough CouncilResidents

(308) (308) (308) (163) (171) (82)

% % % % % %

Chorley Borough Council 79 33 59 38 29 84

Other Lancashire CC Two-TierAuthoritiesPreston City Council 4 34 15 18 21 4South Ribble BC 7 * 3 12 10 14West Lancashire DC 1 0 1 2 5 0

Other AuthoritiesBlackburn with Darwen BC 1 1 2 4 4 0Bolton MBC 4 13 12 1 5 2Liverpool City Council 0 0 0 4 1 0Manchester City Council 0 8 2 1 8 0Wigan MBC * 4 4 2 5 0

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

Source: MORI


13

InvolvementPast research conducted by MORI shows that involvement can be a key elementin helping to understand communities5. In the Chorley Borough Council area,nine percent of residents feel that they are involved a great deal in their localcommunity, one quarter a fair amount (24%), over half not very much (54%) and11% not at all. This is in line with many other areas of Lancashire.

Q19 Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community?A great deal A fair

amountNot very

muchNot at all Don't know


% % % % %

Burnley BC 3 17 48 31 2Chorley BC 9 24 54 11 1Fylde BC 4 27 58 10 1Hyndburn BC 2 45 37 15 1Lancaster City Council 6 23 43 26 3Pendle BC 6 20 51 21 2Preston City Council 4 28 44 23 1Ribble Valley BC 8 29 45 18 1Rossendale BC 3 32 50 13 2South Ribble BC 3 27 54 15 1West Lancashire DC 3 20 58 18 *Wyre BC 3 27 45 24 1

Source: MORI

There are a few significant differences by social grades; the most interesting isthat the largest proportion of respondents feeling not very much or not at allinvolved are from social grades C2DE6 (73%).

Feeling involved in the local community in general is naturally higher for thosewho take part in local activities. One quarter of residents (26%) across theChorley Borough Council area state that they are a member of an organisedgroup (e.g. sports club or team, religious organisation, tenants' or residents'association, Parish Council). Half of those who feel involved in the community(47%) are members of an organised group.

Again there is a difference by social grade, with over three in five ABs (62%)taking part in some kind of local activity; they are also the most involved withorganised groups (34%). Residents who have lived in the area longer do not havea significantly higher level of involvement.

The table below shows the breakdown of the types of activities different groupstake part in.

5 Young, K., Gosschalk, B. & Hatter, W. In Search of Community Identity - MORI analysis conducted forthe Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1995/96.6 C2DE: skilled manual workers, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, the unemployed andstate pensioners.


14

Q18a People do different types of activities in their communities. Have yourecently been involved in any of the activities listed on this card?

Any None

Informal/unorgani-

sedactivity

Organisedgroups

Presentingyour views

Base:

Overall (308) % 46 (27) (26) (11) 54

Age

18-24 (25) % 34 (9) (34) (0) 66

25-34 (46) % 50 (35) (24) (4) 50

35-54 (113) % 46 (27) (27) (14) 54

55-64 (50) % 52 (30) (26) (15) 48

65-74 (45) % 45 (34) (16) (16) 55

75+ (29) % 37 (14) (27) (11) 63

Social grouping

AB (87) % 62 (42) (34) (20) 38

C1 (71) % 47 (24) (32) (8) 53

C2 (73) % 39 (23) (16) (9) 61

DE (76) % 33 (17) (20) (5) 67

Identify withneighbourhood

Very/fairly strongly (271) % 47 (28) (25) (10) 53

Not very/not at allstrongly

(36) % 39 (22) (29) (17) 61

Involved in community

Great deal/fair amount (106) % 72 (47) (47) (19) 28

Not very much/nothing (199) % 33 (17) (15) (7) 67

Length of residency

Under 2 years (35) % 36 (22) (20) (2) 64

3-10 years (61) % 49 (31) (22) (18) 51

11 or more years (211) % 46 (26) (28) (10) 54

Source: MORI


15

Affective CommunitiesFor the purpose of this research we have defined "Affective Communities" as thesense of place created by residents forming an emotional attachment to acommunity. This is defined as where residents feel they most belong, the townor area they most identify with, and if they met someone from outside theirregion, where they would say they came from.

The impact of friends, family and friendly neighbours watching out andsupporting people can be considerable and was raised in the qualitativediscussion groups. This helps to develop an effective community into an affectiveone.

Seven in ten Chorley Borough Council residents (71%) identify most withChorley, with one in ten identifying with Preston (9%). These two areas werealso the most popular destinations for visits such as shopping trips and leisureactivities, although this is unsurprising as these are the major towns in the area.

Source: MORI

1%1%1%1%1%1%1%2%3%

9%

1%71%

Association with Town

ChorleyAdlington

Preston

Ormskirk

Mentions of towns outside Chorley Borough Council area

LeylandBoltonBlackburnGreat Eccleston

Q3 Overall, which town do you currently most associate yourself with?UNPROMPTED

Mentions of towns inside Chorley Borough Council area

LiverpoolManchester


SouthportWigan


16

A similar picture is seen when residents are asked which area or community theyfeel they most belong to. This question was asked after the bank of questions oneffective communities, where people shopped etc. Around three quarters ofresidents identify with an area within the Chorley Borough Council area (76%),with just three percent identifying with Preston and Leyland.

It is interesting that few residents say they most identify with Preston, despitefrequent visits there, in particular for clothes and household goods shopping andleisure activities. This suggests that it may be a good day out, but does not forman integral bond with the people of the Chorley Borough Council area.

Source: MORI

Association with Area or CommunityQ20 People sometimes say that they belong to more than one local area or

community. Which one area or community do you now feel you most belong to?UNPROMPTED

1%1%1%2%3%3%

2%3%

5%5%

57%ChorleyAdlingtonEcclestonClayton-Le-WoodsCharnock Richard

Top six mentions of area or community outside Chorley Borough Council areaLeylandPrestonGreat EcclestonBoltonLancashire

Top five mentions of area or community inside Chorley Borough Council area


Wigan

Bringing Effective and Affective Communities TogetherThe research shows that many of the effective and affective communities overlapand are strongly related to each other. Residents have identified a wide range ofvillages, towns and cities across the Chorley Borough Council area of which asimple question can now be asked: does the administrative area in whichresidents live match the effective and affective communities that they haveidentified?

Staying with the quantitative survey (Q20), the following map shows the areaswith which residents identify outside their own administrative district or boroughcouncil area (this includes data from areas outside the Chorley Borough Councilarea). As discussed, around three quarters of residents (76%) identify with areasinside Chorley Borough Council's boundaries, with just three percent identifyingwith Preston and Leyland.


17

Source: MORI

Chorley Borough Council - Quantitative Area Identity

Data is available from two-tierauthorities in these County Councilareas:CheshireDurhamCumbriaLancashireNorthumberlandNorth Yorkshire

Key:BC = Borough CouncilDC = District CouncilCC = County CouncilMBC = Metropolitan Borough Council


Wigan MBC



Blackburnwith Darwen

BC

76% of Chorley BCresidents identifywith localarea/communitywithin the Councilarea

Base: c.300 Council Residents in each Borough or District Council area 18+, 19 Jun-31 Aug 2003

1%

3%

1%

1%1%

The focus group showed some association with South Ribble Borough Counciland Preston, which is regarded as the county centre, as well as within the ChorleyBorough Council area.

Source: MORI

Chorley Borough Council - Qualitative Area Identity

Data is available from two-tierauthorities in these CountyCouncil areas:CheshireDurhamCumbriaLancashireNorthumberlandNorth Yorkshire

Key:BC = Borough CouncilDC = District CouncilCC = County CouncilMBC = Metropolitan BoroughCouncil


Wigan MBC



Blackburn withDarwen

BC

Preston City Council(Lancashire CC)


18

Local Authority Communities

Belonging to Chorley Borough Council AreaIdentity with district or borough council names varies across the region. Thequalitative research shows that people do not always relate to the name, and thatthe length of time the council has been established could play a key role in namerecognition.

Nine percent of residents very strongly identify with the Chorley Borough Councilarea, with nearly half (46%) saying their identity is fairly strong. This is balancedby either feeling not very strongly (38%) or not at all strongly (5%) attached tothe area.

Source: MORI

9%

46%

38%

5%

Identification with Chorley Borough Council area

Very stronglyNo opinion/not stated 2%

Not very stronglyFairly strongly

Not at all strongly

Q22c How strongly do you feel that you belong to the Chorley BoroughCouncil area?



19

Identification with the Chorley Borough Council area is broadly in line with thattypically found in other Lancashire authorities.

Q22c How strongly do you feel that you belong to the (District or BoroughCouncil) area?

Verystrongly

Fairlystrongly

Not verystrongly

Not at allstrongly

No opinion


% % % % %

Burnley BC 11 44 30 10 5Chorley BC 9 46 38 5 2Fylde BC 7 48 36 2 6Hyndburn BC 4 55 33 4 4Lancaster City Council 6 36 44 6 8Pendle BC 10 42 35 8 5Preston City Council 4 61 28 3 4Ribble Valley BC 13 37 43 1 7Rossendale BC 8 56 29 5 3South Ribble BC 9 50 29 6 6West Lancashire DC 12 38 35 9 6Wyre BC 5 38 44 4 9

Source: MORI


20

The table below shows the differences between different types of residents, andtheir identity with Chorley Borough Council. Relative newcomers to the area(who have lived locally for up to 10 years) show similar levels of identity aslonger-term residents – a pattern which has not been observed in every districtcovered by the research.

Q22c How strongly do you feel you belong to the Chorley Borough Councilarea?

Verystrongly

Fairlystrongly

Not verystrongly

Not atall

strongly

Noopinion

Base:

Overall (308) % 9 46 38 5 2

Length ofresidency

Under 2 years (35) % 15 45 37 3 0

3-10 years (61) % 7 45 44 2 2

11 or more years (211) % 9 47 35 6 3

Social grouping

AB (87) % 10 51 29 7 3

C1 (71) % 11 44 37 7 0

C2 (73) % 4 45 45 3 2

DE (76) % 10 44 42 1 3


Very/fairlystrongly

(271) % 11 48 35 4 2

Not very/not atall strongly

(36) % 0 32 57 9 2

Involved incommunity

Great deal/ fairamount

(106) % 15 51 29 5 1

Not very much/nothing

(199) % 7 43 43 5 3

Source: MORI


21

Satisfaction with services provided by Chorley Borough Council is also importantin determining a sense of identity with the council area. Those residents who ratecouncil services least well, are less likely to identify with the council area. Amongthose very or fairly satisfied with Chorley Borough Council services, three in five(62%) identify very or fairly strongly with the area, compared to a third of thosewho are dissatisfied with council services (34%). This is a significant difference.


22

Belonging to Lancashire County Council AreaThe picture is very similar for identity with the Lancashire County Council area,with few residents placing themselves at the extremes of the scale. In thediscussion group respondents showed a strong identification with Lancashire as acounty name, with older residents particularly likely to feel a strong affinity.

Source: MORI

10%

41%39%

7%

Identification with Lancashire County Council area

Very stronglyNo opinion/not stated

Not very stronglyFairly strongly

Not at all strongly

Q22d How strongly do you feel that you belong to the Lancashire CountyCouncil area?


3%

Q22d How strongly do you feel that you belong to the Lancashire CountyCouncil area?

Verystrongly

Fairlystrongly

Not verystrongly

Not at allstrongly

No opinion


% % % % %

Burnley BC 12 37 35 7 8Chorley BC 10 41 39 7 3Fylde BC 6 38 42 7 7Hyndburn BC 4 52 36 3 5Lancaster City Council 7 34 40 10 10Pendle BC 9 33 38 12 8Preston City Council 3 58 28 5 7Ribble Valley BC 5 26 57 4 8Rossendale BC 6 49 33 8 4South Ribble BC 8 47 34 5 5West Lancashire DC 10 37 37 9 7Wyre BC 5 36 45 4 11

Source: MORI


23

Again, identity with the County Council area is slightly stronger for residents whofeel involved in their local community, and identify with their neighbourhood.

Q22d How strongly do you feel you belong to the Lancashire County Councilarea?

Verystrongly

Fairlystrongly

Notvery

strongly

Not atall

strongly

Noopinion

Base:

Overall (308) % 10 41 39 7 3

Length ofresidency

Under 2 years (35) % 15 45 37 3 0

3-10 years (61) % 6 47 38 7 2

11 or more years (211) % 10 39 40 8 4

Social grouping

AB (87) % 8 53 29 6 3

C1 (71) % 15 42 33 9 0

C2 (73) % 10 36 44 8 1

DE (76) % 6 29 54 4 7


Very/fairlystrongly

(271) % 11 41 39 6 2

Not very/not atall strongly

(36) % 3 39 45 12 2

Involved incommunity

Great deal/ fairamount

(106) % 15 46 36 3 1

Not very much/nothing

(199) % 7 38 41 9 4

Source: MORI

Residents are slightly more likely to feel they strongly identify with the boroughthan the county area, as the following summary table shows.


24

Q22 How strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the followingareas?

Verystrongly

Fairlystrongly

Not verystrongly

Not at allstrongly

Noopinion

Base: 308 Chorley Borough Council residents % % % % %This neighbourhood (asked in urbanareas)/ village/or the nearest village(asked in rural areas)

40 47 12 * *

This town (asked in urban areas)/thenearest town (asked in rural areas)

23 51 22 4 *

Chorley Borough Council area 9 46 38 5 2Lancashire County Council area 10 41 39 7 3

Source: MORI


25

Knowledge and Attitudes towardsLocal Governance

Knowledge of Local GovernanceOne third (33%) of residents across the Chorley Borough Council area say thatthey know a fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, witha further three per cent saying they know a great deal. The majority of residentseither say they know not very much (58%) or nothing at all (6%). In general it ismiddle aged residents, and those in higher social grades, who say they have moreknowledge about the services they provide.

Seven in ten residents (71%) are able to spontaneously name "Chorley BoroughCouncil" as responsible for local government services in their neighbourhood.This is particularly true for residents who feel strongly involved in theircommunity (82% vs. 66% whose level of involvement is low).

Fewer residents spontaneously mention Lancashire County Council asresponsible for local government services in their neighbourhood (28%), and it ismore likely that longer term residents who have lived in the area for 3+ yearswill do so (35% of residents of 3-10 years, 29% of residents of 11+ yearscompared to just 9% of residents of under 2 years).

Overall, one quarter of residents (26%) fail to spontaneously name correctlyeither of the full council names. However, it should be noted that there is a closevariation on Chorley Borough Council: Chorley Council (4%), and around sevenor eight percent each name a neighbouring council. One in five residents fail tomention any council name (20%), rising to 25% of those who do not feelinvolved in their community.

Research by MORI in recent years has shown low awareness of council services,but when prompted the majority correctly identify the responsibilities of ChorleyBorough Council as rubbish collection (81% identify the Borough Council asresponsible), street cleaning (81% correct), council housing (68% correct) andCouncil Tax benefit/housing benefit (68% correct). A similar level of knowledgeis seen for the responsibilities of Lancashire County Council: schools/education(78% correct), fire service (72% correct), libraries (60% correct) and socialservices (64% correct).


26

Involvement with Local GovernanceAs the discussion groups showed, in general, and in line with MORI's experiencein local government research, people tend to stop short of wanting to getinvolved in the work of local authorities - unless they identify serious problemsor concerns with what the council is doing. In the Chorley Borough Council areajust over half (51%) of residents like to know what local councils are doing, butare happy to let them get on with their job. The findings are consistent acrossdifferent types of residents.

Source: MORI

1%

5%

18%

51%

22%

3%

Interest in Local GovernanceQ14 Which of the statements on this card comes closest to your own view of the

councils in this area?I’m not interested in what localcouncils do, or whether they dotheir jobI’m not interested in what localcouncils do, as long as they dotheir jobI like to know what local councilsare doing, but I’m happy to let themget on with their jobI would like to have more of a sayin what local councils do and theservices they provideI already work for, or aminvolved with, local councils andthe services they provide

Don’t know


Administrative Boundary IssuesThe qualitative research focused on issues for reorganisation. Across all thediscussion groups some people struggled with concepts regarding issues forreorganisation, as it is not within their usual scope of reference or experience.We know that there is a general lack of knowledge about the effects and impactof reorganisation, and we need to bear this in mind when thinking about theresearch.

In the Chorley Borough Council area, discussion group residents concentrated onkeeping the boundaries of local authorities small and close to the localcommunity it serves. In the quantitative survey, when asked to state the singlemost important issue to take into account, residents saw the quality of services(23%) as the single most important consideration if boundaries were to change,closely followed by being accountable to local people (19%), responding topeople’s wishes (18%) and cost of services (13%).

Appendices

1. Methodology – Quantitative

2. Methodology - Qualitative

3. Sub-Group Definitions

4. Place Name Gazetteer

5. Qualitative Topic Guide

6. Marked-up Questionnaire

Appendix 1: Methodology -Quantitative

OverviewQuantitative research seeks to answer the question of ‘what’ residents mightthink, by measuring their attitudes on a range of pre-set questions in the contextof an interview, rather than holding an in-depth discussion on the issuesinvolved. It provides statistically robust data.

Within each two-tier district or borough council area, some 300 quantitative face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 19th June and 31st August2003. Some 3,722 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in theLancashire County Council area, with 308 interviews being conducted in theChorley Borough Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work statususing 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the knowndemographic profile of each district or borough council area by age and gender,and for aggregate county, regional and overall findings by the population size ofeach individual district or borough council area. Full computer tabulations havebeen provided in a separate volume.

Interpretation of the DataIt should be remembered that a sample, not the entire population of the ChorleyBorough Council area, has been interviewed. Consequently, all results are subjectto margins of error, which means that not all differences are statisticallysignificant. In addition, care should be taken in interpreting the results, becauseof the small number of respondents in some sub-groups, to ensure that thefindings are statistically significant.

Unless otherwise stated, the base size for each question is provided. Whereresults do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computerrounding or the exclusion of ‘don’t know/not stated’ response categories. Anasterisk (*) 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 differencesbetween subgroups to be taken as real. Where the base number is very low (<50)it is not advisable to make any inferences about that sub-group.

Statistical ReliabilityThe sample tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are givenin the table below. Strictly speaking, these only apply to a perfect randomsample, although in practice good quality quota samples have been found to be asaccurate. This table on the next page shows the possible variation that might beanticipated because a sample, rather than the entire population, was interviewed.As indicated, sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the size ofthe percentage results.

Approximate sampling tolerances applicableto percentages at or near these levels

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%Base: ± ± ±

Size of sample on whichsurvey result is based

3,722 (e.g. total number of interviews inLancashire)

1 2 2

1,500 2 2 31,000 2 3 3750 2 3 4c.300 (e.g. total number of interviews in each districtor borough council area)

3 5 6

100 6 9 1050 8 13 14

Source: MORI

For example, on a question where 50% of the people in a weighted sample of300 respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this resultwould not vary more than around 6 percentage points, plus or minus, from acomplete coverage of the entire population using the same procedures. In otherwords, results would lie in the range 44% to 56%, but would be most likely to be50%, the actual finding.

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

Differences required for significance at or nearthese percentages

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%Base: ± ± ±Size of sample on which survey resultis based750 and 750 3 5 5c.300 and c.300 (e.g. when comparing betweendistrict or borough council areas)

5 7 8

250 and 250 5 8 9150 and 150 7 10 11100 and 100 8 13 1450 and 50 12 18 20

Source: MORI

Appendix 2: Methodology –Qualitative

OverviewQualitative research helps probe the thinking processes and feelings of residents,and attempts to answer the question as to ‘why?’ residents might feel the waythey do. Discussion groups do not seek to offer statistical validity from arepresentative sample. In the Chorley Borough Council area, a qualitativediscussion group was held to establish how residents feel about their localcommunity. The findings from this group were analysed within the context ofthe findings from discussion groups in the other 43 district or borough councilareas under consideration by this study. The dates and locations of the groupsheld in the Lancashire County Council area are listed below.

Discussion Group Timetable

Location Date

Burnley BC Burnley 10th July 2003Chorley BC Chorley 15th July 2003Fylde BC Lytham 23rd July 2003Hyndburn BC Accrington 22nd July 2003Lancaster City Council Lancaster 9th July 2003Pendle BC Nelson 10th July 2003Preston City Council Preston 22nd July 2003Ribble Valley BC Clitheroe 9th July 2003Rossendale BC Rawtenstall 15th July 2003South Ribble BC Leyland 17th July 2003West Lancashire DC Ormskirk 16th July 2003Wyre BC Thornton Cleveleys 21st July 2003

Source: MORI

Interpretation of the DataIt should also be borne in mind that, in order to get an overview of the in-depthfeelings in each area as well as explore linkages across the region, only onediscussion group was held in each district or borough council area. The findingsfrom each group should therefore be viewed in the context of the otherdiscussion groups which have taken place, as well as the quantitative findings.This is because the findings from participants in one discussion group may beunrepresentative of general opinion, and misleading if viewed out of context.

Appendix 3: Sub-Group DefinitionsThe sub-groups discussed in this report (sometimes referred to as crossbreaks)can be found across the top of each computer tabulation (issued separately) ascolumn headings and are typically the demographic sub groups: gender, age,social class etc. Viewing the results in this way can highlight any notabledifferences in the responses of these different types of respondent. Crossbreakscan also be used to show relationships to different questions. For example, theremay be a relationship between identity with council area and the age of therespondent (a table is provided for this).

Crossbreaks provided for each question

Title Sub-group Source

Gender Male DemographicsFemale Demographics

Age 18-24 Demographics25-34 Demographics35-54 Demographics55-64 Demographics65-74 Demographics75+ Demographics

Social Class AB DemographicsC1 DemographicsC2 DemographicsDE Demographics

Car(s) in household Yes DemographicsNone Demographics

Children in household Yes DemographicsNo Demographics

Length of residency Under 2 years Demographics3-10 years Demographics11 or more years Demographics

Involvement in community Great deal/fair amount Q19Not very much/nothing Q19

Identify with neighbourhood Very/fairly strongly Q22aNot very/not at all strongly Q22a

Identify with town Very/fairly strongly Q22bNot very/not at all strongly Q22b

Identify with district/borough council area Very/fairly strongly Q22cNot very/not at all strongly Q22c

Identify with county council area Very/fairly strongly Q22dNot very/not at all strongly Q22d

Quality of district/borough council services Very/fairly satisfied Q16Very/fairly dissatisfied Q16

Quality of county councils services Very/fairly satisfied Q17Very/fairly dissatisfied Q17

Correctly identify District/borough council Q12a/bCounty council Q12a/bNeither Q12a/b

Area Urban Sample PointRural Sample Point

Location Periphery Sample PointNot in periphery Sample Point

Source: MORI

Crossbreak DefinitionsAlthough some crossbreaks are straightforward, such as gender and age, thefollowing definitions should help in using the above crossbreaks.

Social Class: These are standard classifications used in research, and are basedon occupation of the chief income earner in the household. They are defined asfollows.

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

B People with very responsible jobs such as university lecturers, hospitalmatrons, heads of local government departments, middle management inbusiness, qualified scientists, bank managers, police inspectors, and uppergrades of the Armed Services.

C1 All others doing non-manual jobs; nurses, technicians, pharmacists,salesmen, publicans, people in clerical positions, policesergeants/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 distancelorry drivers, security officers, and lower grades of the Armed Services.

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

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

Area: This is a standard indicator. Urban and rural classifications are based onthe population density of the ward where the sample point is located. Wardswith less than 2.8 persons per hectare are classified as rural, and wards with morethan 2.8 people per hectare are classified as urban wards.

Location: This is a new indicator designed specifically for this survey. Peripheryis defined as any interview conducted in a sample point within three miles of thedistrict/borough council border. All other interviews are classed as "Not inperiphery".

Appendix 4: Place Name GazetteerBelow is a list of the towns and areas identified in the quantitative survey acrossquestions 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 21, and the two-tier or single tier councilarea they are within. The list covers all towns and areas mentioned in the surveyscovering the North West.

Gazetteer (A-Be)

Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaAbbeytown Allerdale Borough CouncilAccrington Hyndburn Borough CouncilActon Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilAdlington Chorley Borough CouncilAlderley Edge Macclesfield Borough CouncilAllerdale Allerdale Borough CouncilAllonby Allerdale Borough CouncilAlsager Congleton Borough CouncilAlston Eden District CouncilAltham Hyndburn Borough CouncilAltrincham Trafford Metropolitan Borough CouncilAmbleside South Lakeland District CouncilAntrobus Vale Royal Borough CouncilAppleby in Westmorland Eden District CouncilAppley Bridge West Lancashire District CouncilArlecdon Copeland Borough CouncilArnside South Lakeland District CouncilAshton Wigan Metropolitan Borough CouncilAskham Eden District CouncilAspatria Allerdale Borough CouncilAudlem Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilAughton Lancaster City CouncilBacup Rossendale Borough CouncilBamber Bridge South Ribble Borough CouncilBanks West Lancashire District CouncilBarnoldswick Pendle Borough CouncilBarnton Vale Royal Borough CouncilBarrowford Pendle Borough CouncilBarrow-in-Furness Barrow-in-Furness Borough CouncilBarton Richmondshire District CouncilBay Horse Lancaster City CouncilBebbington Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilBeetham South Lakeland District CouncilBelle Vue Allerdale Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Be-Ca)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaBidston Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilBigrigg Copeland Borough CouncilBillington Ribble Valley Borough CouncilBirkenhead Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilBirmingham Birmingham City CouncilBispham Blackpool Borough CouncilBlackburn Blackburn with Darwen Borough CouncilBlackpool Blackpool Borough CouncilBleasdale Wyre Borough CouncilBollington Macclesfield Borough CouncilBolton Bolton Metropolitan Borough CouncilBolton-le-Sands Lancaster City CouncilBradford Bradford City CouncilBradwell Derbyshire Dales District CouncilBrampton Carlisle City CouncilBrereton Congleton Borough CouncilBrierfield Pendle Borough CouncilBromborough Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilBrookfield Preston City CouncilBrough Eden District CouncilBroughton Preston City CouncilBroxton Chester City CouncilBunbury Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilBurland Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilBurnley Burnley Borough CouncilBurscough West Lancashire District CouncilBurton Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilBurton South Lakeland District CouncilBurton-in-Kendal South Lakeland District CouncilBury Bury Metropolitan Borough CouncilBuxton High Peak Borough CouncilCalveley Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilCapenhurst Chester City CouncilCarlisle Carlisle City CouncilCarlton Hambleton District CouncilCarnforth Lancaster City CouncilCartmel South Lakeland District CouncilCatforth Preston City CouncilCaton Lancaster City CouncilCatterall Wyre Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Ch-De)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaChapel-en-le-Frith High Peak Borough CouncilCharnock Richard Chorley Borough CouncilChatburn Ribble Valley Borough CouncilCheadle Manchester City CouncilChelford Macclesfield Borough CouncilChester Chester City CouncilChipping Ribble Valley Borough CouncilChorley Chorley Borough CouncilChurch Hyndburn Borough CouncilChurch Minshull Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilChurchtown Wyre Borough CouncilClaughton Wyre Borough CouncilClayton Brook Chorley Borough CouncilClayton Green Chorley Borough CouncilClayton le Moors Hyndburn Borough CouncilClayton-le-Dale Ribble Valley Borough CouncilClayton-le-Woods Chorley Borough CouncilCleator Moor Copeland Borough CouncilCleveleys Wyre Borough CouncilClifton Fylde Borough CouncilClitheroe Ribble Valley Borough CouncilCockermouth Allerdale Borough CouncilColne Pendle Borough CouncilConiston South Lakeland District CouncilCopeland Copeland Borough CouncilCotebrook Vale Royal Borough CouncilCrawford West Lancashire District CouncilCrewe Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilCroglin Eden District CouncilCrooklands South Lakeland District CouncilCroston Chorley Borough CouncilCuddington Vale Royal Borough CouncilDalston Carlisle City CouncilDalton-in-Furness Barrow-in-Furness Borough CouncilDarlington Darlington Borough CouncilDarwen Blackburn with Darwen Borough CouncilDavenham Vale Royal Borough CouncilDean Allerdale Borough CouncilDearham Allerdale Borough CouncilDelamere Vale Royal Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (De-Gr)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaDerby Derby City CouncilDewsbury Kirklees Metropolitan Borough CouncilDistington Copeland Borough CouncilDownham Ribble Valley Borough CouncilDurham Durham City CouncilEarby Pendle Borough CouncilEastham Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilEaton Vale Royal Borough CouncilEccleston Chorley Borough CouncilEden Eden District CouncilEdenfield Rossendale Borough CouncilEdgworth Blackburn with Darwen Borough CouncilEgremont Copeland Borough CouncilEllesmere Port Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilElswick Fylde Borough CouncilElton Chester City CouncilEndmoor South Lakeland District CouncilFence Pendle Borough CouncilFleetwood Wyre Borough CouncilFlimby Allerdale Borough CouncilFlookburgh South Lakeland District CouncilFoulridge Pendle Borough CouncilFreckleton Fylde Borough CouncilFrenchwood Preston City CouncilFrizington Copeland Borough CouncilFrodsham Vale Royal Borough CouncilFulwood Preston City CouncilFylde Fylde Borough CouncilGalgate Lancaster City CouncilGarrigill Eden District CouncilGarstang Wyre Borough CouncilGoosnargh Preston City CouncilGoostrey Congleton Borough CouncilGosforth Copeland Borough CouncilGrange Preston City CouncilGrange-over-Sands South Lakeland District CouncilGrasmere South Lakeland District CouncilGreat Asby Eden District CouncilGreat Broughton Allerdale Borough CouncilGreat Eccleston Wyre Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Gr-Ki)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaGreat Harwood Hyndburn Borough CouncilGreat Sutton Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilGrindleton Ribble Valley Borough CouncilHalton Halton Borough CouncilHandforth Macclesfield Borough CouncilHandforth Dean Macclesfield Borough CouncilHanley Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilHapton Burnley Borough CouncilHarraby Carlisle City CouncilHarrogate Harrogate Borough CouncilHartford Vale Royal Borough CouncilHartlepool Hartlepool Borough CouncilHaslingden Rossendale Borough CouncilHaslington Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilHaswell Easington District CouncilHaverthwaite South Lakeland District CouncilHawcoat Barrow-in-Furness Borough CouncilHelmshore Rossendale Borough CouncilHelsby Vale Royal Borough CouncilHensingham Copeland Borough CouncilHesketh Bank West Lancashire District CouncilHexham Tynedale District CouncilHeysham Lancaster City CouncilHeywood Rochdale Metropolitan Borough CouncilHigher Walton South Ribble Borough CouncilHoghton Chorley Borough CouncilHolmes Chapel Congleton Borough CouncilHornby Lancaster City CouncilHorwich Bolton Metropolitan Borough CouncilHough Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilHowick South Ribble Borough CouncilHutton South Ribble Borough CouncilHyndburn Hyndburn Borough CouncilJodrell Bank Congleton Borough CouncilKells Copeland Borough CouncilKendal South Lakeland District CouncilKeswick Allerdale Borough CouncilKidsgrove Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough CouncilKings Meaburn Eden District CouncilKingsley Vale Royal Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Ki-Mo)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaKirkby Lonsdale South Lakeland District CouncilKirkby Stephen Eden District CouncilKnott End Wyre Borough CouncilKnutsford Macclesfield Borough CouncilLamplugh Copeland Borough CouncilLancaster Lancaster City CouncilLanercost Carlisle City CouncilLangho Ribble Valley Borough CouncilLeeds Leeds City CouncilLevens South Lakeland District CouncilLeyland South Ribble Borough CouncilLittle Leigh Vale Royal Borough CouncilLittle Sutton Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilLittleton Chester City CouncilLiverpool Liverpool City CouncilLongridge Ribble Valley Borough CouncilLongton Carlisle City CouncilLongtown Carlisle City CouncilLostock Hall South Ribble Borough CouncilLow Row Allerdale Borough CouncilLowca Copeland Borough CouncilLowther Eden District CouncilLytham Fylde Borough CouncilLytham St Annes Fylde Borough CouncilMacclesfield Macclesfield Borough CouncilMalpas Chester City CouncilManchester Manchester City CouncilMarket Drayton North Shropshire District CouncilMaryport Allerdale Borough CouncilMawdesley Chorley Borough CouncilMellor Ribble Valley Borough CouncilMellor Brook Ribble Valley Borough CouncilMiddlewich Congleton Borough CouncilMillom Copeland Borough CouncilMilnthorpe South Lakeland District CouncilMirehouse Copeland Borough CouncilMobberley Macclesfield Borough CouncilMorecambe Lancaster City CouncilMorton Eden District Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Mu-Ri)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaMuch Hoole South Ribble Borough CouncilNantwich Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilNatland South Lakeland District CouncilNelson Pendle Borough CouncilNess Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilNeston Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilNether Alderley Macclesfield Borough CouncilNether Kellet Lancaster City CouncilNew Barns Barrow-in-Furness Borough CouncilNew Longton South Ribble Borough CouncilNew Mills Macclesfield Borough CouncilNewburgh West Lancashire District CouncilNewcastle-under-Lyme Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough CouncilNewcastle-upon-Tyne Newcastle-upon-Tyne City CouncilNewton Fylde Borough CouncilNorthwich Vale Royal Borough CouncilNottingham Nottingham City CouncilOldham Oldham Metropolitan Borough CouncilOrmskirk West Lancashire District CouncilOswaldtwistle Hyndburn Borough CouncilOut Rawcliffe Wyre Borough CouncilPadiham Burnley Borough CouncilPapcastle Allerdale Borough CouncilParbold West Lancashire District CouncilParkgate Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilPendle Pendle Borough CouncilPenrith Eden District CouncilPenwortham South Ribble Borough CouncilPilling Wyre Borough CouncilPort Sunlight Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilPoulton Wyre Borough CouncilPoulton-le-Fylde Wyre Borough CouncilPoynton Macclesfield Borough CouncilPreston Preston City CouncilQueensferry Flintshire County Council, WalesRamsbottom Bury Metropolitan Borough CouncilRawtenstall Rossendale Borough CouncilRenwick Eden District CouncilRibble Valley Ribble Valley Borough CouncilRibchester Ribble Valley Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Ri-St)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaRimington Ribble Valley Borough CouncilRishton Hyndburn Borough CouncilRochdale Rochdale Metropolitan Borough CouncilRockcliffe Carlisle City CouncilRode Heath Congleton Borough CouncilRossendale Rossendale Borough CouncilRowrah Copeland Borough CouncilRuncorn Halton Borough CouncilSalesbury Ribble Valley Borough CouncilSalford Salford City CouncilSalterbeck Allerdale Borough CouncilSamlesbury South Ribble Borough CouncilSandbach Congleton Borough CouncilSaughall Chester City CouncilScarisbrick West Lancashire District CouncilScholar Green Congleton Borough CouncilScorton Wyre Borough CouncilSeascale Copeland Borough CouncilSeaton Allerdale Borough CouncilSellafield Copeland Borough CouncilShap Eden District CouncilShavington Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilShotton Sedgefield District CouncilSilloth Allerdale Borough CouncilSimonstone Ribble Valley Borough CouncilSingleton Fylde Borough CouncilSkelmersdale West Lancashire District CouncilSkelsmergh South Lakeland District CouncilSkelton Eden District CouncilSkipton Craven District CouncilSlyne Lancaster City CouncilSockbridge Eden District CouncilSouth Manchester Manchester City CouncilSouth Ribble South Ribble Borough CouncilSouth Wirral Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilSouthport Sefton Metropolitan Borough CouncilSt Anne’s Fylde Borough CouncilSt Bees Copeland Borough CouncilSt Helens St Helens Met CouncilStacksteads Rossendale Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (St-Wi)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaStockport Stockport Metropolitan Borough CouncilStoke-on-Trent Stoke-on-Trent City CouncilTarleton West Lancashire District CouncilTarporley Vale Royal Borough CouncilTarvin Chester City CouncilTattenhall Chester City CouncilThornton Wyre Borough CouncilTilston Chester City CouncilTodmorden Calderdale Metropolitan Borough CouncilTorver South Lakeland District CouncilTrawden Pendle Borough CouncilTreales Fylde Borough CouncilTroutbeck Bridge South Lakeland District CouncilUlverston South Lakeland District CouncilUp Holland West Lancashire District CouncilUpton Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilVale Royal Vale Royal Borough CouncilVicars Cross Chester City CouncilWalney Barrow-in-Furness Borough CouncilWalton-le-Dale South Ribble Borough CouncilWarrington Warrington Borough CouncilWarton Fylde Borough CouncilWaterfoot Rossendale Borough CouncilWaterside Blackburn with Darwen Borough CouncilWeaverham Vale Royal Borough CouncilWesham Fylde Borough CouncilWhaley Bridge High Peak Borough CouncilWhalley Ribble Valley Borough CouncilWhitby Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilWhitchurch North Shropshire District CouncilWhitehaven Copeland Borough CouncilWhittle-le-Woods Chorley Borough CouncilWhitworth Rossendale Borough CouncilWigan Wigan Metropolitan Borough CouncilWigton Allerdale Borough CouncilWillaston Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough CouncilWilmslow Macclesfield Borough CouncilWilpshire Ribble Valley Borough CouncilWindermere South Lakeland District CouncilWinsford Vale Royal Borough Council

Source: MORI

Gazetteer (Wi-Z)Place Name Two-tier or Single Tier Council AreaWirral Wirral Metropolitan Borough CouncilWithnell Chorley Borough CouncilWoodplumpton Preston City CouncilWorkington Allerdale Borough CouncilWray Lancaster City CouncilWrenbury Crewe & Nantwich Borough CouncilWrexham Wrexham County Borough Council, WalesWrightington Bar West Lancashire District CouncilWythenshaw Manchester City Council

Source: MORI

Appendix 5: Qualitative TopicGuide

Communities and local governmentTopic Guide for COI/BCFE discussion groups in the North West, North

East and Yorkshire and the Humber regions

Final version

For the moderator: background and overall objective of discussion groups

The Government has announced that referendums will take place in 2004 inthese three regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. TheBoundary Committee has been directed by the Government to undertake reviewsof local government in each region and to put forward proposals for potentialpatterns of unitary local government. As part of the referendum, voters will begiven the opportunity to select their preferred unitary pattern at the same time asvoting on an elected regional assembly. The preferred unitary pattern wouldreplace the current two tiers of county and district councils in the event of anelected regional assembly being introduced.

To help it formulate its initial proposals for consultation, the BoundaryCommittee has (through the COI) asked us to undertake surveys in each regionand to hold a discussion group in each of the affected district council areas.

The objective of the discussion groups is to assess residents’ attitudes towardstheir local areas, their sense of community identities and interests, and issueswhich may impact on, and help to explain, their attitudes to local authorityboundaries.

Elements of discussion needed to achieve objective

1. To identify overall attitudes to their area, what is good and bad, whatareas people identify with.

2. What people consider to be important factors in deciding localgovernment boundaries, and why.

3. Awareness of current local authorities, who does what, and theirboundaries.

4. How people identify with existing local communities and boundaries, andwhy.

5. Preferences for local authority boundaries.

Note. We should not volunteer the name of the client. But, if pressed, we maysay that say we are undertaking this research for an independent organisation. Ifasked, we can explain we have not been commissioned by local councils for thiswork.

Maps

The Boundary Committee has prepared a number of maps to assist thediscussion:

• For placing on the wall before groups starts, Map 1a is an A0-sized county (+surrounding area) map with main geographical features, county boundaries,but no district boundaries.

• Map 1b is the same map except that it also shows district council boundaries.This should be placed underneath Map 1a so that it can be used in the latterpart of the discussion. These maps need to be looked after because they willbe used in all the groups.

• Map 2 is an A2-sized county (+surrounding area) map with geographicalfeatures but no boundaries. You have been given seven copies. As the topicguide explains, you will give a map each to three ‘mini’ groups of participantsso that they can draw on perceptual boundaries of communities, and laterfurther copies to the three mini-groups to draw ‘new authority’ boundaries.The remaining map is for the moderator’s use.

• A4 district map will allow you to familiarise yourself with local placenames/area before you do the group.

• You have also been provided with a road atlas in case you need it

Topic guide

Our target is to cover all the ground in this topic guide. Sometimes, however, we will need toprioritise. Issues which are essential to cover are therefore italicised.

Note that participants will be asked to compete a short questionnaire before andafter their group.

Section Objective Time

1. Introduction

Outline purpose of discussion – looking at what youthink about your local area and how public servicesshould be provided and what you would like to seehappen.

ConfidentialityPermission to tape recordSet tape recorder

Ask group to introduce themselves, in pairs (log forfuture analysis – key points will also be available fromthe pre-group questionnaire).

Personal history:-name, age, work, family.-how long have you lived in the area-where else have you lived-where is your family from-why did you move to this area-strength of continuing ties with previous areas-comparison of feeling towards current and previousareas.

Tell us about one good thing and one bad thing about living inthe area (this will also be asked in the pre-groupquestionnaire).

MENTION OPPORTUNITY AT END TOCOMPLETE SHORT QUESTIONNAIRE FORANY FURTHER THOUGHTS.

Establish group, getoverall perspective ofparticipants

Also acts as a warm-up

Keep this very brief,as pick up some infoin pre/postquestionnaires

10 mins

2. Mind map: How to define ‘community’

START BY ASKING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLETHINK OF WHEN THEY THINK OF THEIR‘COMMUNITY’. MODERATOR TO DRAFT‘MIND MAP’ ON FLIPCHART. NOTE ALLASSOCIATIONS BUT ALSO NOTE FIRSTASSOCIATIONS (TOP OF MIND).

PROBE: what other types of community can youthink of?

Now looking at these ideas, which 3-4 aspects do you believe aremost important for defining the community.

NOW ASK PARTICIPANTS TO THINK INGEOGRAPHICAL TERMS.What areas do you identify with?What are their boundaries and how far do they extend?PARTICIPANTS TO REFER TO MAP 1a IFNEEDED

SPLIT INTO 2 or 3 MINI-GROUPS AND ASKPARTICIPANTS TO DRAW AREAS ON MAP 2(USE RED PENS) OUTLINING THECOMMUNITIES OR AREAS THEY FEEL THEYBELONG TO OR IDENTIFY WITH.MODERATOR TO SPLIT GROUPS BY AGE, SEG,OR AREA [AS APPROPRIATE] – LOGDIFFERENCES BETWEEN MINI-GROUPS.

PROBE: GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT,PEOPLE, WORK, FACILITIES/AMENITIES(INCLUDING SHOPPING, LEISURE,EDUCATION ETC.)

THEN AS A WHOLE GROUP, BY USING THEMAPS AS A REFERENCE, PROBE WHYPARTICIPANTS DRAW BOUNDARIES WHERETHEY DO. ALLOW EACH GROUP TO OUTLINETHEIR PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS LIKELY TODRAW OUT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS. IFNOT, PROBE:

How far does public transport/road links affect whereyou go?

How does this affect your identification with differentareas?

Word associationprovides way in totopic + way to gleanaudience priorities/language + messages

By exploring differentresponses, understandthe range of factors atwork

[Use map 1a]

Gets participantsthinking in terms ofhow different factorsdiffer spacially orcoincide?[Use map 2 – use redpens]

30 mins

What other factors affect whether/how much youidentify with different areas? Why? By how much?

PROBE: COMMUNITY CHARACTER, LOCALACTIVITY/MEMBERSHIP OFORGANISATIONS, GEOGRAPHY,TOPOGRAPHY, LOCAL ACCENT, LOCALHISTORY, TRADITIONAL AFFILIATIONS,POSTAL ADDRESSES.And which other areas do you identify with?PROBE INSIDE AND OUTSIDEDISTRICT/COUNTY.SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES TO OWNAREAS.

In the light of this further discussion, you may now want toamend the boundaries of the areas you identify withPARTICIPANTS TO DRAW BOUNDARIES ONSAME COPY OF MAP 2 (USE BLUE PEN)MODERATOR TO ENSURE PARTICIPANTSTHINKING IN GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS HERE.

And are there any areas that you don’t identify with?

[HALF WAY POINT – MOVE ON IFNEEDED]

Use map 2 again – butuse blue pen thistime]Some resps may notchange their originalboundary – not aproblem

Ask if this hasn’tcome up already.

3. Exploring service delivery

GIVE RESPONDENTS A COPY OF LIST OFPUBLIC SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDEDAND DISCUSS WITH PARTICIPANTS.

Ask if there were any surprises in terms of which typeof council provides which service.

Which services are provided well?And which services are not provided so well?[Be brief – this is here to maintain participants’engagement.]

ASK FOR BOTH DISTRICT COUNCIL ANDCOUNTY COUNCIL.Do you know where the Councils are based? PROBEFOR DC & CCHave you visited or contacted them recently?

Assess understandingand awareness ofpublic services andlocal governance.

Introduction offactors which mayimpact later onperceptions ofboundaries.

10 mins

4. Preferences for local government boundaries

Explain that system may change. REFER TOMODERATOR NOTES FOR EXACT WORDING

PROMPT FOR SIZE OF AUTHORITYHow big do you think the new authority should be?

NEXT SECTION COVERS ATTITUDESTOWARDS TWO TIER/UNITARY SYSTEM:NOTE: YOU MUST USE EXACT WORDINGHERE TO AVOID BIAS/LEADING.WRITE UP ON FLIPCHARTWhat are the pros and cons of a two tier system (i.e.two types of council – District and County) that existat the moment?

WRITE UP ON SAME FLIPCHARTCan you tell me the pros and cons of having just onecouncil providing all services for your area?Probe on impact of this on quality, cost, effectivenessetc.

THEN EXPLORE IMPACT ON LIVES OFHAVING A UNITARY COUNCILHow do you think having one council would impactthe lives of people living around here?What do you think the main changes would be?

Do local authority boundaries are important ? Why?What is more important; quality of services, or whoprovides them?

What impact do boundaries have on a council’sfunctions? Probe for having the most appropriateboundaries for services, efficiency, effectiveness,convenience, reflecting communities etc.

What are the kind of issues which should inform local authorityboundaries?PROBE: ECONOMIES OF SCALE, EASE OFCONTACT, ACCOUNTABILITY, HISTORICALOR TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES, COST OFSERVICES, LEVEL OF INFORMATION,ACCESS TO COUNCILLORS, QUALITY OFSERVICES, RESPONDING TO PEOPLE’SWISHES, SENSE OF LOCAL COMMUNITY, SIZEOF POPULATION, RURAL/URBAN FACTORS,OTHER FACTORS (TRADITION, CHANGEETC). [NOTE: IT IS IMPORTANT TO TEASEOUT THESE FACTORS]

Refer to moderatornotes showcardsection a) whichexplains review

Note that there is noset size for newauthority type – theyshould tell you whatthey feel is sensible

Note: moderator canbe flexible here onhow much we coverthis section onone/two councils

Note: this is to getresps thinking aboutexisting system vs newsystem, but we don’tneed to dwell on prosand cons

35 mins

SPLIT INTO 2 OR 3 SUB-GROUPS: Ask respondents todraw on new copy of map 2 where they think a new authority’sboundaries should be [use red pens].[Note: if respondents stuck, they should choose an area at leastthe size of their current district but are free to choose a biggerarea or to completely change current district boundaries].

ASK GROUPS TO PRESENT BACK THEIR MAPSTO THE GROUP AS A WHOLE AND EXPLAINTHE REASONS BEHIND THEIR CHOICES.

ALSO PROBE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEENTHE MINI-GROUPS, E.G. GENDER? AGE?WHERE PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVE?FOLLOWING CURRENT BOUNDARIES?

NOW LOOK AT MAP1b (WITH DISTRICTBOUNDARIES ON)

How do district boundaries relate to the local communityboundaries drawn earlier?And how do they relate to the boundaries just drawn?

Do the current boundaries make sense? PROBE FORCURRENT BOUNDARIES WHICHRESPONDENTS FEEL AREINAPPROPRIATE/DON’T MAKE SENSEHow would you feel about one authority covering the wholeCounty area?

ATTACHMENT

How would you feel if the county council no longer existed?Why?PROBE: AFFINITY TO DIFFERENT AREAS,TRADITION, CIVIC PRIDE ETC

DISCUSS ATTACHMENT TO NAME VSSERVICE PROVISIONNOTE: important to emphasise difference in CountyCouncil no longer existing vs the historic county(which would still exist) – e.g. the county area/namewould still exist for civic reasons, i.e. county cricketwould still exist

Explore County name – how would they feel if stillthere but with north/south/east/west X County(choose as appropriate)?What would they feel comfortable with their countyarea being called? Why?What would they not want it to be called? Why?

Note issue new copyof map 2 to each minigroup [use red pens]

[Take down map 1a toshow map use 1bwhich wasunderneath]

Refer to moderatornotes section b) forinfo

DRAW MAP ON FLIPCHART OF COUNTY ANDSURROUNDING COUNTIES.

Explore what it means to be from that particularcounty and how the county identity varies toneighbouring counties.

How would you feel if the district council no longerexisted? Why?PROBE: AFFINITY TO DIFFERENT AREAS,TRADITION, CIVIC PRIDE ETC PLUSATTACHMENT TO NAME VS SERVICEPROVISION

IF APPROPRIATE: REFER TO MAP 1bSHOWING DISTRICT AND SURROUNDINGDISTRICTSWhat does it mean to be from your District and how does thatvery when compared to neighbouring Districts?Thinking about adjacent districts, where are the communitylinks strongest or weakest with this district?

Get respondents tohelp you draw ‘map’by shouting out theadjacent county names– see example at endof topic guide

5. Final messages

Thinking about what we have been discussing – people’s sense ofcommunity and how this relates to local authority boundaries:- what are most/least relevant arguments which should be

made for where local authority boundaries should be?- What is the one key message you would want us to take

away from this group?

DISTRIBUTE POST-GROUP QUESTIONNAIRECOVERING ATTITUDES AND AWARENESSFOLLOWING SESSION. ALSO PROVIDESOPPORTUNITY FOR ANY FURTHERTHOUGHTS.

Identification of keyarguments

5 mins

Example of County and surrounding Counties ‘map’ to draw at section 4:

Get participants to shout out which counties surround the county you areworking in. Don’t worry if drawing is not accurate in terms of size/shape etc! Isjust to gauge awareness and lead onto county identity probes and comparisonwith surrounding counties.

Durham

Northumb-erland

Tyne andWear

Cumbria

NorthYorkshire

Public services prompt (copy in pack to give to each participant)

County councils:• Education• Social Services• Libraries• Fire• Registration (births, marriages and

deaths)• Smallholdings• Planning (strategic, minerals and

waste planning, highway dev.control, historic buildings etc)

• Transport (public transport,highways, traffic management,transport planning etc)

• Environmental services (rubbishdisposal)

• Recreation and art• Economic development (tourism

promotion)• Consumer protection (trading

standards, public analysis,consumer advice)

District councils:• Housing• Council tax• Electoral registration• Allotments• Cemeteries and crematoria

• Planning (local plans, planningapplications)

• Transport (offstreet parking, streetlighting etc)

• Environment services (rubbishcollection, building regulations,street cleaning etc)

• Recreation and art• Economic development (tourism

promotion)• Consumer protection

(environmental health)

Appendix 6: Marked-upQuestionnaire

community research in chorley borough council area 2003 · community research in chorley borough...

Documents