North Norfolk Local
Priorities
A 2010 report on attitudes towards local
area and public services
16 November 2010
Legal notice
© 2010 Ipsos MORI – all rights reserved.
The contents of this report constitute the sole and exclusive property of Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI retains all right, title and interest, including without limitation copyright, in or to
any Ipsos MORI trademarks, technologies, methodologies, products, analyses, software
and know-how included or arising out of this report or used in connection with the
preparation of this report. No license under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.
The contents of this report are of a commercially sensitive and confidential nature and
intended solely for the review and consideration of the person or entity to which it is
addressed. No other use is permitted and the addressee undertakes not to disclose all or
part of this report to any third party (including but not limited, where applicable, pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act 2000) without the prior written consent of the Company
Secretary of Ipsos MORI.
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................2
Views towards the local area...................................................................... 2
Views towards local services and service providers................................... 2
Key population sub-group patterns ............................................................ 3
Where can cost savings be made? ............................................................ 4
Background .....................................................................................8
Introduction ................................................................................................ 8
Methodology............................................................................................... 8
The questionnaire ...................................................................................... 9
Fieldwork.................................................................................................. 10
Interpreting the data ................................................................................. 10
Acknowledgements .................................................................................. 10
Publication of data.................................................................................... 11
Attitudes to and activities in the local area.................................13
Satisfaction with local area....................................................................... 13
Local decision-making.............................................................................. 16
Attitudes to Local Governance ....................................................24
Value for Money ....................................................................................... 24
Overall satisfaction................................................................................... 26
Satisfaction with local public services........................................31
Satisfaction with local public services ...................................................... 31
Satisfaction with services provided by the councils.................................. 33
Spending Priorities .......................................................................37
Priorities for quality of life ......................................................................... 37
How do services need to improve? .......................................................... 39
What are the spending priorities?............................................................. 40
Potential areas to make savings ..................................................44
Areas where savings could be identified .................................................. 44
Executive Summary
1
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Executive Summary
Views towards the local area
Residents’ satisfaction with their local area remains very high, as do key measures of
cohesion, sense of belonging and the perception that people from different backgrounds get
on well together. There are some degrees of difference however by age (with older residents
more satisfied) and by area (with Wells-Next-The-Sea particularly positive and North
Walsham relatively less so). It should also be noted that while there has been an increase in
feelings of belonging to localities, there has been a (slight) decrease over the past few years
in believing people from different backgrounds get on.
There has been an increase in the proportion of those who say they feel they can influence
local decisions (up from 32% in 2008 to 38%). This is most encouraging, particularly given
the association we find between levels of perceived involvement and satisfaction with the
District Council. There has been a corresponding rise in the proportion of people who would
like still greater involvement, which may reflect the greater salience of this issue, with recent
talk of the Big Society.
Overall however, there remains a lack of awareness about opportunities for getting involved
in local decisions – particularly among residents under 55 who are also more likely to say
they would like more such opportunities. Residents call for more information on what is
happening in their local areas, as well as what is being decided at any given time and how
the process of active consultation works.
Actively being asked to participate is another
critical driver for involvement – the role of the Council and the Partnership will therefore be
critical in helping to foster further community involvement.
Views towards local services and service providers
The perceived value for money which the District Council is seen to offer has remained at the
same level as 2008, with more thinking it does offer value for money than not (42% and 25%
respectively); so too has overall satisfaction with performance.
Again, under current
circumstances this is a very positive finding – although it should be recognised there are
considerable differences in opinion by area. Parish/ town councils are also more likely to be
seen as offering value for money than not, although views are evenly split when it comes to
the County Council.
2
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Local Area Partnerships tend to be rated positively by those who are aware of their activities
and function, but there is widespread lack of awareness about their role.
Views towards local service providers are broadly positive: in the case of local health
services, this is particularly the case, but somewhat less so for the police service (where
there are calls among one in three for improved access to local officers). In terms of specific
service areas, key environmental services such as refuse collection, local tips and recycling
continue to be well regarded, as are libraries and arts and cultural facilities. Dissatisfaction is
highest for bus services, public toilets and economic development.
Younger residents are particularly concerned about the state of the local economy, as seen
in the Place Survey. This may reflect broader concerns about the future sustainability of the
District, which we identified in previous qualitative work for the Partnership1, in terms of its
perceived ability to retain young talent through jobs and training opportunities.
Key population sub-group patterns
Indeed, we find there is a consistent pattern of higher ratings for both measures of the local
area, including opportunities for being involved in decision-making, and ratings for local
governance (especially lower tier structures) by age and locality. Older residents above the
age of 55 tend to be most positive and residents in Wells-next–the-Sea are more likely to say
their parish or town councils offer good value for money and are more satisfied with their
performance. In the case of the District Council, Stalham and Holt residents are most inclined
to be positive about performance and value for money.
More generally, people residing in villages and the countryside tend to be more positive
about parish councils and the District Council, and to feel they have opportunities for
participation in decision-making. They are also more likely to volunteer than residents in
more urban areas.
1
North Norfolk Community Strategy and Budget Consultation, September 2007
3
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Where can cost savings be made?
Residents were asked which services they considered relatively more or less important, and
which ones they were more or less concerned about being cut. From cross-referencing the
responses to both, and taking into account current levels of satisfaction, the services we
have highlighted as prime areas for protection from cuts are:
ƒ
Refuse collection
ƒ
Local tips
ƒ
Doorstep recycling
ƒ
Community services (eg. Help for vulnerable people)
ƒ
Local public transport (especially bus services)
There is also a clear strategic need for continuing economic development, which – along
with public toilets and bus services – shows the greatest dissatisfaction, and for affordable
housing (considered among the most important priorities).
By contrast, the areas which people would be less concerned about cutting spending on are:
ƒ
The arts (including theatres and museums)
ƒ
Public transport information (although not public transport services)
ƒ
Sports and leisure facilities
ƒ
Parks and open spaces
It is worth noting that there is a comparable level of support for cuts in these first three areas
across almost all sub-groups. Only respondents in Holt (16%) are more likely than average to
want to see spending on the arts protected, and only private renters (12%) and those in
Wells-next-the-Sea (16%) are more likely than average to want to see museums and
galleries protected.
On public transport information too, fewer than one in ten citizens in each sub-group say that
they would like to see spending protected here, and the only group significantly more likely
than average to say so are those aged 55 – 64 (9%).
4
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
With regard to parks and open spaces and with sports and leisure services however, it
should be borne in mind that younger people tend to rate these services more highly than
older people. For example, 42% of people aged 16-34 and 25% of those aged 35-44 want to
see spending on parks and open spaces protected, compared to just 9% of those aged over
65. Respondents in North Walsham (27%) are also slightly more likely than average (21%) to
want to see spending protected here. For sports and leisure services, 39% of those aged 3544 want to see spending protected, compared to 9% of those aged over 65.
Community safety may also be an area where savings can be made, although any moves in
this direction will need to be taken with caution, and may need to centre on changes to
operational structures (given that access to police is a key concern). While satisfaction with
local police and community safety is lower than for some other services, this perception is
common throughout most areas in the country. At the same time, the crime levels are not
seen to need improving by most residents – reflecting the relatively low crime rates in the
district.
We have also taken into account that these are areas which are less likely to be mentioned
as needing improvement, or less likely to experience high levels of dissatisfaction. Therefore,
a case might be that future investment is less necessary in these service areas than others.
These are:
ƒ
Libraries (where current satisfaction is high)
ƒ
Community/cultural facilities (considered relatively less important or in need of
improvement than most other services)
However, it is advised that any efficiencies be explored by means of operational
restructuring, rather than closure. The closure of such facilities can be an emotive issue, and
their importance as a social meeting place and community hub can be key. The residents
who are most concerned with protecting these facilities tend to be
Other Ipsos MORI research has explored potential ways in which such cost-savings could be
implemented. In terms of alternative service provision, there are often concerns about private
companies taking the place of the state.2 However, for low salience issues, which most of
these are, it is unlikely to cause unpopularity on a wide or long-term scale. In the end, it is
likely to be the quality of service delivery which has the greatest impact on how people view
2
What do people want, need and expect from public services?, Ipsos MORI/2020 Public Services Trust (2010),
5
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
a decision to provide services in an alternative way – if it is done well they are likely to be
satisfied, and if not, they are not.3
User charging is another area which we have explored in wider research – whether
introducing charging or increasing existing charging. In general, people are again opposed to
the concept initially, but it is something which is much more likely to be accepted in non-core
services, such as sports and leisure facilities for example, than it is for core services such as
health. Service charging is also something which is more likely to be accepted by higher
earners and by younger people, and it is worth bearing in mind when considering if it would
be appropriate to apply charging to any local services.4
An alternative option, and one which is discussed in recent work by NESTA and ResPublica,
is asset transfer. The authors argue for handing over control of the kind of public assets that
have been mentioned above, such as libraries and leisure centres, to community groups.
Their contention is that this not only saves money, but also helps these places to become
‘community assets’ – areas where a sense of community and of regeneration can be fostered
amongst local people.5
3
4
Public Services and the Private Sector, September 2001
What do people want, need and expect from public services?, Ipsos MORI/2020 Public Services Trust (2010),
5
http://www.respublica.org.uk/sites/default/files/ResPublica%20-%20Buy,%20Bid,%20Build%20(web)_0.pdf, To
Buy, To Bid, To Build, November 2010
6
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Background
7
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Background
Introduction
This report outlines the main findings from the Local Priorities in North Norfolk survey,
conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of North Norfolk District Council and North Norfolk
Community Partnership.
The research was undertaken to provide information on residents’ perceptions of a range of
issues relating to life in the borough, to help inform the Council and its partners going
forward. The survey was conducted among residents aged over 16 in the district of North
Norfolk
Methodology
A postal self-completion methodology was used which replicates the methodology used in
the Place Survey and previous BVPI surveys, to enable comparisons to be made with past
data.
The sampling frame prescribed by the Audit Commission and Communities and Local
Government (CLG) for the Place Surveys is the small-user Postcode Address File (PAF)
from which addresses were selected at random. A random sample of 3,000 addresses was
selected from the PAF file, using a random start point and then a ‘1 in n’ approach to
selection.
Data was weighted back to the known population profile of the Borough to counter-act non
response bias. Weighting was applied by age, gender and work status. For age and gender,
estimates were taken from 2009 Census mid-year population estimates, and for work status
they were taken from the 2001 Census.
The following chart shows the unweighted level of response that we received from different
groups. As we typically find in postal surveys, older residents are more inclined to respond
than younger, and this also impacts upon the lower proportion of full-time workers who
respond, relative to the actual district profile.
8
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Methodology: Sample Profile
Sample Profile for North Norfolk: Key demographics
Survey sample
District-wide Population
Base size
Gender
48%
48%
52%
52%
Men
Women
462
506
Age
16-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
5%
44
19%
10%
9%
14%
16%
24%
21%
93
140
232
47%
65+
459
35%
Work status
Full-time
28%
272
36%
Not full-time
64%
72%
696
Base: All valid responses.
The questionnaire
Following the approach undertaken in the Place survey a covering letter stating the purpose
for which the data was being collected was sent with each questionnaire. The front page of
each questionnaire was branded with North Norfolk District Council and North Norfolk
Community Partnership logos as well as Ipsos MORI logo, and contained a covering letter
co-signed by Virginia Gay, Leader of North Norfolk Council and Stephen Eldred, the Chair of
North Norfolk Community Partnership. To further boost response rates, the covering letter
also included information about a prize draw of £50 for returning a completed questionnaire.
The covering letter also contained contact details for a team member (Nick Maybanks) at
Ipsos MORI, who participants could call if they wanted any further information, and the
contact details of Helen Thomas at North Norfolk District Council. Participants were also able
to request a translated version of the questionnaire in an alternative language, or were given
the opportunity to undertake the survey over the telephone with an Ipsos MORI translator.
In order to boost response rates, one reminder mailing of the questionnaire was also sent out
to those residents who had yet to respond to the survey. The covering letter was adjusted to
reflect the fact that it was a reminder, whilst still meeting data protection requirements.
All questionnaires were distributed through the UK Royal Mail postal system. In addition,
residents were required to return their completed questionnaires using the pre-paid envelope
provided with the questionnaire.
9
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Fieldwork
Fieldwork was undertaken between 19 August and 22 September 2010. The overall adjusted
response rate achieved from the main sample was 35% - representing 1,048 returned
questionnaires from an original sample of 3,000 addresses.
Interpreting the data
It should be remembered that a sample of respondents, and not all residents living in North
Norfolk, participated in the survey. Therefore, all results are subject to sampling tolerances,
which means that not all differences are statistically significant. Crudely speaking, overall
results are accurate to +/- 1 to 2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, but this
assumes a perfect random sample has been achieved (in practice, margins of error may be
slightly larger). Further information on this, and a full guide to statistical reliability, is provided
in the Appendices.
Ipsos MORI received 1,048 completed questionnaires. Where relevant and in accordance
with the guidelines for previous Place and BVPI Surveys, the base for some questions is
“valid responses” i.e. all those providing an answer. Those stating “don’t know” or who do not
complete the question are excluded from the base calculations, unless otherwise stated.
Where percentages do not sum to 100, this is due to computer rounding, the exclusion of
“don’t know” categories, or multiple answers. Throughout the report, an asterisk (*) denotes
any value less than half a per cent, but greater than zero.
In order for North Norfolk District Council and partners to understand how residents’
perceptions have changed over time, data from previous postal surveys conducted in the
borough have been included where relevant. The same methodology was followed for each
of these surveys, making comparisons between them fairly robust.
Acknowledgements
Ipsos MORI would like to thank the 1,048 residents in North Norfolk who took part in the
survey. We would also like to thank Helen Thomas from North Norfolk District Council and
Beatrix Ward of North Norfolk Community Partnership for their help throughout the duration
of this project.
10
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Publication of data
As North Norfolk District Council has engaged Ipsos MORI to undertake an objective
programme of research, it is important to protect the organisation’s interests by ensuring that
it is accurately reflected in any press release or publication of the findings. As part of our
standard terms and conditions, the publication of the findings of this report is therefore
subject to the advance approval of Ipsos MORI. Such approval will only be refused on the
grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.
11
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Attitudes to and activities in
the local area
12
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Attitudes to and activities in the local
area
Satisfaction with local area
Area satisfaction was one of the key measures by which council performance was measured
in the Place Survey, and remains a strong indicator of the impact which a council’s work is
having at a local level.
In North Norfolk almost nine out of ten (88%) of residents say that they are satisfied with their
local area as a place to live, a similar proportion as said so in 2008.6 Only 5% say that they
are dissatisfied.
Satisfaction with local area
Contextual data
Q
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place
to live?
% Satisfied
Trend data
% Dissatisfied
Comparative data
86
87
88
85
3
6
5
6
North Norfolk
2006/07
North Norfolk
2008/09
North Norfolk
2010
Norfolk average
2008
Base: All valid responses (999); fieldwork dates: 19th August – 22nd September 2010; 2008/09 (1,162)
Satisfaction is high amongst all parts of the district, but it ranges from 84% (in the areas
nearest to Fakenham and North Walsham) to 95% in the areas near to Sheringham. A sense
of belonging to the local area, perceptions that one can influence decision-making and a
belief that people from different backgrounds get on well together all show a high correlation
with overall area satisfaction.
6
Local area is defined as the area which includes residents’ nearest grocery stores, newsagents,
doctor’s practice and primary school. This is a different definition than was used in past surveys such
as the Place or BVPI surveys, where it was defined as “the area within 15-20 minutes walking distance
from [residents’] home” but one that we feel better reflects the reality of ‘local area’ for the district’s
rural population.
13
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Satisfaction with area across North Norfolk
% satisfaction
95
Sheringham (Base: 106)
94
Wells Next the Sea (Base: 49)
91
Cromer (Base: 153)
90
Holt (Base: 144)
88
Stalham (Base: 141)
North Walsham (Base: 246)
84
Fakenham (Base: 140)
84
Source: Ipsos MORI
Base: All valid responses (in brackets after each authority)
Older residents are also much more likely to be satisfied with their local area than younger
ones. 91% of those aged over 557 report being satisfied, compared to just 78% of those aged
16-34. Greater satisfaction among older residents is a theme which is visible throughout this
survey.
While overall area satisfaction has remained constant since 2008. the proportion who
consider that they belong to their local area has risen from 64% to 73% over the same
period.
7
91% of 55-64 year olds and 91% of over 65s.
14
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Belonging to neighbourhood
Q
How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood?
Not at all strongly
Very
strongly
7%
25%
Not very strongly 21%
Belong
73%
% who feel they belong:
North Norfolk 2008 =
64%
Norfolk 2008 = 61%
Base: All valid responses (973)
48%
Fairly
strongly
Differences in perception between different parts of the district broadly reflect those for area
satisfaction, ranging from 63% feeling they belong in North Walsham to 91% in Wells-nextthe-Sea.
Again, older residents are more likely to report that they feel they belong to their local
neighbourhood (83% of those over 65 compared to 58% of those aged 16 – 34).
The one local measure of which does appear to be on a slight downward trend though, is
whether or not areas are seen as a place where people from different backgrounds get on
well together. A vast majority still agree with this statement (80%), and it is above the Norfolk
average, but this has fallen a little since 2006/7, when the figure was 84%.
15
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Different backgrounds getting on well:
Contextual data
Q
To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place
where people from different backgrounds get on well together?
% Agree
% Disagree
Comparative data
Trend data
84
81
80
75
16
19
20
25
North Norfolk
2008/09
North Norfolk
2010
North Norfolk
2006/07
Norfolk average
2008
Base: All valid responses (740); fieldwork dates: 19th August – 22nd September 2010; 2008/09 (759).
*National figures based on Citizenship Survey 2007/08, face to face survey of 8,804 adults in England, April 07 – March 08
There are no significant differences in this measure across the district. Once again though,
those aged over 65 are more likely than average (87%) to say that they agree with the
statement.
Our previous qualitative work for the Partnership in 2007 showed that some communities
resent (often absent) owners of second homes in the vicinity, and it may be that this
increasing trend plays a part in perceptions on this measure – while at the same time
bonding the rest of the community tighter (as evidenced by the increase in sense of
belonging).
Local decision-making
A new question was included in this survey, which asked residents how satisfied or
dissatisfied they are with current opportunities to get involved with local decision-making. A
greater proportion of residents are satisfied (37%) than dissatisfied (23%), but the largest
group of all are those without a strong opinion either way (39%). This may well suggest a
lack of awareness about exactly what forms these opportunities for getting involved take.
16
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Opportunities for participation
Q
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the opportunities for
participation in local decision-making provided by North Norfolk Council?
Not at all satisfied
9%
8%
Very
satisfied
15%
Not very
satisfied
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
30%
Satisfied
38%
Fairly
satisfied
39%
Base: All valid responses (861)
There are differences by area for this measure. Those in North Walsham and Sheringham
are least likely to be satisfied with their opportunities to get involved (29% and 30%
respectively), while residents from Holt (46%) and Wells next the Sea (50%) are far more
likely to be satisfied. Residents who say they live in a village or in the countryside (43%) are
more likely to be satisfied than town-dwellers (30%).
Those over 65 are the most likely to be satisfied – 48%, compared to 29% of 16-34 year
olds. This may be the result of having more time to take advantage of social networking
opportunities, and become involved in local community projects or local government
structures.
Residents are also more likely to feel as if they can influence local decisions now than has
been the case in recent years. Although residents remain more likely to feel that they cannot
influence local decisions (62%), than that they can (38%), the latter figure has risen six
percentage points since 2008.
17
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Influencing decisions: Contextual data
Q
Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local
area?
% Agree
% Disagree
Comparative data
Trend data
32
32
38
32
68
68
62
68
North Norfolk
2008/09
North Norfolk
2010
North Norfolk
2006/07
Norfolk average
2008
Base: All valid responses (840); fieldwork dates: 19th August – 22nd September 2010; 2008/09 (964)
.
Holt is once again the area where residents are most likely to feel positive (46%). There are
however no significant differences between socio-demographic groups.
As well as an increased sense of involvement, there has been an increase in desire for
further involvement since 2008.
Getting more involved: Contextual data
Q
Generally speaking, would you like to be more involved in the decisions
that affect your local area?
% saying they want to get more involved
Trend data
Comparative data
27
23
28
North Norfolk
2006/07*
North Norfolk
2008/09
North Norfolk
2010
23
Norfolk average
2008
Base: All valid responses (1,002); fieldwork dates: 19th August – 22nd September 2010; 2008/09 (1,102).
*Note wording for 2006/07 BVPI question ‘… more involved in decisions your Council makes that affect your local area’
18
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
In all, 80% of residents say that they would like some form of further involvement, (28% say
so in all cases, while 52% would potentially like further involvement depending on the issue).
Table 9: % of respondents by sub-group who want further involvement in decision-making
Group
Want
further Want
involvement
further
involvement
depending on the
issue
Gender
Men
32
49
Women
26
55
16-34
33
57
35-44
28
60
45-54
33
54
55-64
37
47
65+
20
49
Full-time
34
55
Not full-time
26
51
Owner-occupier
29
54
Socially rented
18
42
Privately rented
35
50
Age
Work Status
Tenure
19
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Group
Want
further Want
involvement
further
involvement
depending on the
issue
Nearest Town
Cromer
32
49
Fakenham
27
54
Holt
30
49
North Walsham
26
53
Sheringham
38
48
Stalham
20
55
Wells-next-the-Sea
23
58
Over 65s are the group least likely to want more involvement. Only 20% of this group say
that they would like to be further involved no matter the issue, compared with 37% of 55-64
year olds and 33% of 16-34s. With regard to 16-34s, as we have seen they are less likely to
be satisfied with opportunities for decision-making, and so this presents future challenges for
the Council and its partners.
Answers to the three questions on involvement tended to be more drawn towards a neutral
option, where one was given, or in the previous question drawn towards saying that it
‘Depends on the issue’. Responses to the question asked about what would encourage
involvement (see below) indicate that a lack of information is often a barrier to further
involvement, and this may also provide an explanation for why people were unable to give a
definitive answer one way or another.
Greater public involvement in service delivery, under the umbrella of the Big Society, is going
to be one of the major themes of the Coalition’s first term and something that all local areas
will be encouraged to foster over the next few years. In North Norfolk, the following chart
shows that at the moment, the main barriers to this kind of involvement are a lack of
20
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
information about what is happening locally (61%), what decisions are being made (55%)
and how the process works (38%).
There is also a sense that their opinion is not being sought (38% say that they would get
more involved if they were asked). In other words, they see themselves as outside of the
decision-making process. While some would benefit from increased physical access, such as
from better public transport and having costs or expenses paid, the major barrier at the
moment is information.
Encouraging involvement
Q
What would help you to get involved with making decisions about your
local area?
More informed about what’s happening locally
If knew what was being decided on
If understood how decision making process
worked
If I was asked
Hearing about how others have got
involved in my local community
Having costs/ expenses paid
Better public transport links
Ability to use the internet
Opportunities to learn new skills, eg.
fundraising, organising event
Help with childcare
Improved disabled access
Help with care for a dependent
Info about how to stand for election as
local representative
Info about how to start a community group
61%
55%
38%
38%
22%
22%
16%
15%
11%
7%
6%
5%
5%
3%
Base: All valid responses (630)
The conclusion we can draw from this is that communications from local public services in
these areas will continue to be very important in encouraging ongoing public participation.
This is emphasised by the fact that residents under the age of 55 are more likely to say that
they need more local information than over 65s (68% vs 49% respectively) – and that older
residents express more satisfaction with opportunities for decision-making (see page 14).
Having costs or expenses paid is an important consideration for one in four women (27%),
compared to 17% of men, and among people with disabilities, the proportion citing better
public transport links rises to 23%. Among residents without a car it rises still further, to 42%.
Given the lack of awareness about how to get involved, and the importance that residents
placed on being asked to take part in decision-making, it is perhaps no surprise that the
methods by which residents would most like to get more involved are ones in which they are
asked directly for their opinion – surveys (62%) and local elections (59%).
21
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Preferred ways of getting involved
Q
In which, if any, of the following ways would you like to be more involved?
62%
59%
Responding in a survey
Voting in local elections
44%
Attending a public meeting
Taking part in a local campaign, eg.
hospital closures
Contacting my local councillor/ MP
Volunteering, eg. charity shop, school
governor
Attending a focus group
Taking part in an on-line campaign,
eg. via Facebook
Writing letters to a local/ national paper
Helping with fundraising
Paying subscription to a local charity
Standing for election (at Parish,
Town or District level)
32%
30%
22%
18%
17%
13%
12%
7%
6%
Base: All valid responses (638)
In general, people are also still more likely to want to get involved in a local campaign which
is offline than online (32% vs 17%). As may be expected though, young people are much
more likely to want to be involved in on-line campaigns (38% of 16-34 year olds compared
with 5% of over 65s).
Another point of note is that willingness to volunteer is higher amongst those who live in
villages or the countryside (26%) than it is in town-dwellers (16%). Interestingly, we have
observed higher satisfaction with opportunities for decision-making among residents in more
rural localities (see page 14). Is this an indication that greater opportunities (whether actual
or perceived) can lead to more willingness to volunteer?
22
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Attitudes to
Local Governance
23
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Attitudes to Local Governance
Value for Money
Local councils are considered by residents to be providing better value for money than the
county council, with both parish and town councils and the District Council being rated 12
percentage points higher than the county council.
Delivering value for money: Local councils
Q
To what extent do you agree or disagree that … provides value for money?
% Agree
42
42
19
25
My local parish
or town council
North Norfolk
District Council
% Disagree
30
28
Norfolk
County Council
Base: All valid responses (??)
Groups which are generally more positive on other measures tend to be more positive in
their views on value for money. Over 65s are more likely agree than average to agree that
each council provides value for money (53%, 50% and 40%). Those who live in villages are
also more likely than those in towns to consider that their town/parish councils and the
District Council provide value for money (47% vs 34% and 47% vs 36% respectively). There
is no corresponding difference in relation to the County Council though.
There are also considerable area variations. When asked if local town or parish councils
provide value for money, responses ranged from 30% agreement in North Walsham to 71%
in Wells-next-the-Sea. Residents from Stalham and Holt (both 53%) are both more likely than
average to consider that they get value for money from the District Council and those in
Stalham are also more likely to rate the County Council positively (41%).
24
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Table 10: % of respondents who consider the following provide value for money
Nearest Town
North
Norfolk Town/Parish
District Council
Norfolk
Council
County
Council
Holt
53
56
38
Stalham
53
43
41
Wells-next-the-Sea
46
71
38
Cromer
43
49
28
Fakenham
38
34
26
North Walsham
38
30
25
Sheringham
35
37
26
In terms of North Norfolk District Council’s ongoing performance, this position is in line with
the findings from the 2008 Place Survey, remaining at about two in five residents considering
that they get value for money. This is also in line with the Norfolk-wide average.
Delivering value for money: Contextual data
Q
To what extent do you agree or disagree that North Norfolk District Council
provides value for money?
% Agree
% Disagree
Comparative data
39
42
40
27
25
25
North Norfolk
2008
North Norfolk
2010
Norfolk average
2008
Base: All valid responses
25
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Overall satisfaction
Local parish or town councils (51%) and the District Council (51%) are also rated more
highly than the County Council (40%) in terms of overall satisfaction. The proportions of
dissatisfied however, are similar in all three cases. In the case of the county council, the
lower proportion of residents answering that they are satisfied is in part down to a large
number of citizens answering that they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (40%). This may
well be due to a comparatively lower level of knowledge about the County Council’s work.
Satisfaction with local councils
Q
Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
the way … runs things?
% Satisfied
% Dissatisfied
51
51
15
19
20
My local parish
or town council
North Norfolk
District Council
Norfolk
County Council
40
Base: All valid responses (??)
In all three cases, satisfaction is higher than average amongst residents over 65 (60%, 61%
and 51%) and village-dwellers (54%, 55% and 44%). It has been noted previously that
people who live in villages are both more satisfied with their opportunities to get involved with
decision-making, and more likely to suggest further involvement through volunteering, and so
it may be that the increased engagement with local democratic and public services is behind
their increased satisfaction here.
It is certainly true in general that residents who feel they can influence local decision-making
tend to express higher satisfaction with local authorities – for example 67% of those with
perceived influence are satisfied with the District Council, compared to only 37% of
residents who do not feel they have influence.
There is an even greater association between perceived value for money and satisfaction, as
the scattercharts overleaf indicate.
26
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
North Norfolk District Council – by area
% Value for Money
60
Stalham
Holt
50
Wells-next-the-Sea
Cromer
40
North Walsham
Fakenham
Sheringham
30
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% Satisfied
Base: All valid responses
Town/Parish Council – by area
% Value for Money
80
70
Wells-next-the-Sea
60
Holt
Cromer
50
Stalham
Sheringham
40
North Walsham
30
Fakenham
20
30
Base: All valid responses
40
50
60
% Satisfied
27
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
70
80
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Norfolk County Council – by area
% Value for Money
50
Stalham
40
Holt
Wells-next-the-Sea
Cromer
30
Fakenham
Sheringham
North Walsham
20
20
30
40
% Satisfied
Base: All valid responses
50
60
Holt and Wells-next-the-Sea are the two areas most likely to be satisfied with their parish or
town councils (61% and 76% respectively), and residents from Holt are also most likely to be
satisfied with North Norfolk District Council (63%).
Table 11: % of respondents who are satisfied with the following
Nearest Town
North
Norfolk Town/Parish
District Council
Council
Norfolk
County
Council
Holt
63
61
46
Stalham
59
52
47
Wells-next-the-Sea
59
76
59
Cromer
52
54
43
Fakenham
47
46
33
North Walsham
44
43
33
Sheringham
39
47
37
As with value for money, North Norfolk District Council continues to perform roughly in line
with the results seen in the 2008 Place Survey, and in line with the county-wide average, with
around half (51%) of residents satisfied with the way that they run things.
28
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Satisfaction with council: Contextual data
Q
Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
the way North Norfolk District Council runs things?
% Satisfied
% Dissatisfied
Comparative data
48
51
51
19
19
18
North Norfolk
2008
North Norfolk
2010
Base: All valid responses (???)
29
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Norfolk average
2008
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Satisfaction with
local public services
30
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Satisfaction with local public services
Satisfaction with local public services
Of all the service providers mentioned, residents are most likely to be satisfied with the
provision of local healthcare facilities, with levels of satisfaction ranging from 57% for
community hospitals to 77% for GPs. Satisfaction with the police and fire services however,
is lower. In the case of fire services this is mainly due to the large number of people who
have not used the service. In the case of the police however, answers both here and
elsewhere in the survey indicate that people are generally not as satisfied as with other key
local services.
Satisfaction with key public service providers
Q
Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following
public services in your local area?
% Very satisfied
% Very dissatisfied
% Fairly satisfied
% Haven't used
% Fairly dissatisfied
Satisfied
2008
Bases:
39
Your GP (family doctor) (989)
Your acute hospital (966)
29
Your local dentist (951)
29
Local fire and rescue services (960)
26
Your local hospital (941)
24
Local Police Force (979)
12
38
39
31
25
7 43
76
10
N/A
7 3 15
1 **
33
32
52
33
54
4 4 18
64
10 4 18
45
Base: All valid responses
There have been few changes in levels of satisfaction since the Place Survey findings of
2008, although satisfaction with local hospitals has fallen slightly (64% to 57%) and
satisfaction with dentists has risen slightly (52% to 60%).
Satisfaction with local hospital is especially high in Cromer (70%) and Sheringham (73%),
and with acute hospital in Stalham (77%). Conversely, dissatisfaction with local GPs rises to
23% and with local police to 19% in Sheringham.
31
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
There is the suggestion of a link being made between Local Area Partnerships and the police
and community hospitals. If we look at level of satisfaction with both services and crossreference these with ratings given for LAPs, we find this impacts considerably. While 66% of
people who are satisfied with LAPs are satisfied with the police, this falls to 29% among
those dissatisfied with LAPs; in the case of community hospitals the respective proportions
are 74% and 40%.
Amongst democratic services, satisfaction in general is lower8, although more than half say
that they are satisfied with the work of the District Council (51%). They are less likely to be
satisfied with Local Area Partnerships (28%). The Partnerships do not have a particularly
high rate of dissatisfaction either (4%), but one-third (33%) of residents have never knowingly
had dealings with the Partnerships or its activities. This again highlights a potential lack of
awareness of LAPs among the public.9
Satisfaction with local democratic services
Q
Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following
public services in your local area?
% Very satisfied
% Very dissatisfied
% Fairly satisfied
% Haven't used
% Fairly dissatisfied
Bases:
North Norfolk District Council (942)
13
Your parish or town council (908)
13
Norfolk County Council (899)
9
Local Area Partnerships (738)
8
41
28
31
35
21
34
10 5 3
36
6 4 10
35
9 5 7
31
33
Base: All valid responses
Satisfaction with the District Council and with the County Council is consistent across the
district, but once again residents in Holt are more likely to be positive about their local town
or parish council (55%). With regard to Local Area Partnerships, residents from Stalham are
the most likely to be satisfied (38%).
8
This is something that we often find with regard to democratic services. People are more inclined to
rate the services that a council provides more highly than they rate the council itself, something which
was shown in the national findings to the 2008 Place Survey. One reason for this is that many
residents are unclear precisely which services a particular local authority is responsible for.
9
Please note that these questions on satisfaction were asked twice in the questionnaire, with in
different battery statements. They therefore differ slightly from those reported on page 22.
32
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
In the case of all local services, we observe the pattern of higher satisfaction among older
residents (as indeed we do in most local authority areas). This in turn tends to reflect greater
use of each service. However, there are no notable variations according to whether people
live in rural or more urban locations, with the exception of GPs – where satisfaction is higher
at 81% in villages than in towns (70%). Parish Councils also receive slightly higher ratings
than Town Councils (49% vs 39% respectively).
Satisfaction with services provided by the councils
When looking at potential areas for money-saving, one approach is to consider making
cutbacks in areas where people are currently very satisfied. In times of financial hardship, it
may be that councils can provide a service which is slightly less of a gold standard, whilst still
maintaining a relatively, if slightly less, satisfied population.
Libraries (77%) and environmental services such as refuse collection (75%), local tips
(74%) and doorstep recycling (67%) are the areas in which people are most satisfied with
the council’s work, and so potential candidates for these kinds of savings. There is also
general satisfaction with provision for the arts (52%, plus 51% for theatres and 47% for
museums).
However, we would strongly recommend against any sizeable cutbacks in highly visible
universal services such as refuse collection, local tips and recycling – as these are the
services most commonly associated with local authorities and therefore vital in maintaining
reputation and perceptions of value for money.
33
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Satisfaction with local services
Q
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following
services provided or supported by North Norfolk District Council
and Norfolk County Council?
% Very satisfied
% Fairly dissatisfied
% Very dissatisfied
% Fairly satisfied
2008
Satisfied
%
Bases
18 41
48
29
77
Libraries (825)
Refuse collection (959)
Local tips/household waste (916)
recycling centres
Doorstep recycling (896)
19
Parks and open spaces (816)
17
14
83
83
14
84
74
15
11 7
71
26
83
64
42
33
45
29
48
46
Sports/leisure facilities (744)
10
45
31
95
38
Arts (700)
Keeping public land clear of
(894)
litter and refuse
Theatres (698)
13
39
38
63
N/A
10
42
18 6
67
65
45
Local transport information (808)
11
15 7
41
20 11
41
42
64
41
44
64
N/A
105
N/A
17 9
N/A
16
N/A
22 9
N/A
34
17
16
31
Museums/galleries (670)
14
33
Environmental health (677)
8
37
Community Services (603)
7
38
Community Safety (772)
5
Economic development (589)
38
37
Local bus services (865)
Public toilets (836)
23
29
23
39
34
6 24
4 20
35
26
45
27
Base: All valid responses
The areas where there is most dissatisfaction, and therefore most call for the council to
continue or raise investment, are economic development, local bus services and public
toilets. Economic development is a particular concern for younger residents, with 52% of 1634 year olds reporting that they are currently dissatisfied with the work that the councils are
doing on this.
34
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
There is also a low level of satisfaction with the work that is being done around community
safety. The topic of wanting more to be done in terms of policing and community safety is
one which is commented on in more detail in the next section of this report.
35
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Spending Priorities
36
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Spending Priorities
Priorities for quality of life
The following scatter chart shows which areas residents in North Norfolk are most likely to
want to see investment in, by charting those services which they consider important to make
somewhere a good place to live against how much they think that service needs to be
improved locally. Services in the top right-hand corner of the chart (circled in red) are ones
which are both important and need improving locally, and are therefore areas which the
council should consider protecting from excessive cuts, while those in the bottom left-hand
corner (circled in green) are areas which are not seen as so important in making somewhere
a good place to live and not seen as needing improvement locally. It may therefore be
appropriate to consider some of these areas as lower priorities for public spending.
The areas that people would like the council to focus in general, are on job prospects,
affordable decent housing and public transport. The former two in particular represent
local concerns about the future sustainability of the area and its viability as a place to live,
particularly for younger residents. This is an issue which arose in qualitative work that Ipsos
MORI carried out for North Norfolk Community Partnership in 2007. In that research, many
younger residents believed that they would have to move out of the area in order to ensure
stable employment. Indeed, both job prospects and affordable housing are considered more
important issues now than they were during the 2008 Place Survey, suggesting increasing
concerns about the longer-term sustainability of local communities.
The concerns about affordable housing also chime with another finding which came out of
the qualitative work, which was that there is a feeling of local resentment towards people who
buy second homes or holiday homes in the area. There is a belief in some quarters that this
is fuelling house price rises, without the owners contributing anything to the area.
The importance that local people are attaching to both job prospects and affordable decent
housing also justifies the continuing position of these two areas as key overarching priorities
within the North Norfolk Community Strategy.
It should also be noted that – while important – crime levels are generally not seen to be in
need of improvement.
37
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Developing priorities for improving quality of life
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Activities for teenagers
Road/pavement
maintenance
40
Job prospects
Affordable decent housing
Broadband connection
Wages/ cost of living
30
Public transport
Facilities for
young children
20
Traffic
congestion
Community
activities
Sports &
10 leisure
Cultural facilities
Race relations
Pollution
Level of crime
Health services
Education
Access to nature
Parks and open spaces
0
0
Shopping
Clean streets
Coastal
Management
10
20
Base: All valid responses
30
40
% Important generally
50
60
For the sake of comparison, here is the same chart showing the priorities for quality of life in
Norfolk as a whole.
Developing priorities for improving quality of life
% Most need improving locally
50
Activities for teenagers
40
Roads/ pavements
30
Public transport
Traffic congestion
Job
prospects
Wages/ cost of living
Sports & leisure
20
Pollution/ Cultural
activities
Race relations
0
0
10
Level of crime
Facilities for
young children
Clean streets
Community activities
10
Affordable decent housing
Shopping
Parks and
open spaces
Access
to nature
20
Health services
Education
30
40
50
60
% Important generally
Base: All valid responses
Notable differences between the district and the county as a whole are the greater
prominence given to levels of crime across the county, and the greater importance attached
to job prospects within the district. Further versions of the above charts, which show how
these priorities change in different parts of the district, are contained in Appendix 1.
38
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Areas such as facilities for young children and education provision are more likely to be
considered important by younger citizens than older ones. For example, 24% of 16-34 year
olds see facilities for young children as important and 35% of this age group think they need
improvement locally, compared to just 11% and 13% respectively of over 65s. A slight
tension between different age groups was noted in previous qualitative work, in which older
residents were seen to consider some youth provision such as youth clubs and centres to be
superfluous. This was underpinned by a lack of acknowledgement from some older residents
about some of the problems that young people face. It may also be the case in this example
that older residents are often unaware of the difficulties that younger residents within the
district are facing.
How do services need to improve?
The service that people in North Norfolk are most likely to cite as needing improvement in
some form is the Police. They are an interesting case because, as the chart on the previous
page shows, there are few people who believe that there needs to be an improvement in the
level of crime (just 12% mention this as one of the top four or five priorities). However, as
identified in the previous section of this report, there is a relatively lower level of satisfaction
with police services compared to other key local services.
When asked specifically whether it is the quality of service or the availability/access to the
service where improvements need to be made, two in five (39%) want to see an increase in
availability (compared to 5% who cite quality). The inference from this data is that even while
not necessarily concerned about crime levels, people are still keen to have a visible police
presence on their streets.
It is notable that the only organisation where higher proportions think quality of service
needs improving above accessibility are local authorities: the County, District and
Town/Parish councils. One in five (19%) think the quality of the services the District Council
provide could be improved – the highest proportion who say this of any of the listed services.
Other than local police, substantial proportions also call for better access to healthcare: GPs
(27%), community hospitals (23%) and dentists (19%).
39
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
How do services need to improve?
Q For those services that need improving in your local area, tell us how they need
to be improved?
% Availability
% Quality
Your local Police Force
39
15
Your local Fire and Rescue Service
Your GP
Your local community hospital/cottage
hospital
Your acute hospital
6
North Norfolk District Council
Your parish or town council
Local Area Partnerships
27
15
23
12
18
16
19
9
Your local dentist
Norfolk County Council
8
13
16
14
19
11
15
10
11
Base: All valid responses
What are the spending priorities?
There is a clear desire for some of the council’s environmental services to be retained, such
as refuse collection (60%), local tips (39%) and doorstep recycling (36%). Though we
noted earlier that there is the potential to look at savings on some environmental services –
they are generally a low priority for making somewhere a good place to live, and few people
think improvements need to be made to the service – these appear to be unpopular services
to cut.
It is also worth noting considering the high visibility and association in people’s minds of
these services with the local authority – as discussed in the previous section – and the
adverse effect substantial cuts would have on your overall reputation and confidence in you
to deliver basic amenities.
40
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Areas to be protected from cuts
Q
In the current climate of public sector spending cuts, which of the 5 things below
would you most like to see protected, as far as possible, from cuts?
Refuse collection
Community safety
Local bus services
Community Services
Local tips/household waste recycling centres
Doorstep recycling
Keeping public and clear of litter and refuse
Economic development
Public toilets
Libraries
Environmental health
Parks and open spaces
Sport/leisure facilities
Arts
Theatres
Local transport information
Museums/galleries
60%
54%
51%
47%
39%
36%
35%
33%
30%
25%
23%
21%
17%
10%
7%
6%
5%
Base: All valid responses
The importance of bus services is emphasised again here (51%), particularly among the
over 55s (59% of both 55-64 year olds and over 65s). This is an area which has been raised
in previous qualitative work, and is mentioned at several points in this survey as a key local
priority, both in terms of making somewhere a good place to live and as a service that needs
improving in the district. Coupled with high levels of dissatisfaction, we would suggest that
this is an area which residents consider to be a spending priority.
Residents are also keen to see that community services (eg. Safeguarding vulnerable
children and adults) are retained (47%). This is not something which has been touched on in
much detail in other parts of this survey, but is a response which echoes much of the work
that Ipsos MORI has done elsewhere. Research conducted earlier this year by Ipsos MORI
for Reuters shows a clear majority of the public want services for vulnerable people
protected, even if it means those who are better-off face higher taxes and cuts to their
services. Only a fifth of people interviewed (20%) supported service cuts no matter who is
affected. 10
10
Ipsos MORI / Reuters; 504 adults in Great Britain aged 18+ were interviewed by telephone between 18th – 20th
June 2010.
41
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
National context: protecting the vulnerable
Which of these comes closest to your opinion about how the
government goes about reducing the deficit?
Don’t know
Neither
The only way for the
government to reduce the
deficit is to cut spending on
all services, even if that
includes services that are
mainly used by people who
most need help
2%
3%
20%
75%
Base: 504 British adults 18+, 18th-20th June 2010
The government’s priority
should be to
protect services for people
who most need help, even
if that means that other
people are harder hit by tax
rises and cuts to the
services they use
Source: Ipsos MORI/Reuters Political Monitor
42
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Potential areas to make
savings
43
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Potential areas to make savings
Areas where savings could be identified
In this final section, we draw together all the findings from previous questions on local service
priorities, service satisfaction and areas to be protected from cuts, and make suggestions
based on this data for areas which may be most appropriate for considering cost savings.
When asked directly, the area where residents say they are least concerned to see cuts
being made is the arts (70%), followed by theatre (65%) and museums and galleries
(58%). These are all areas which are also considered low priorities for improvement locally,
and also where there is little public dissatisfaction currently, all of which make them potential
areas in which cutbacks could be made.
It is also worth noting that there is a comparable level of support for cuts in these three areas
across almost all sub-groups. Only respondents in Holt (16%) are more likely than average to
want to see spending on the arts protected, and only private renters (12%) and those in
Wells-next-the-Sea (16%) are more likely than average to want to see museums and
galleries protected.
Table 1: % of citizens who would most like to see the arts protected, as far as possible, from
cuts11
Overall
Age
Work status
Tenure
average
16-34
10
10
35-44
6
45-54
9
55-64
11
65+
9
Full-
Not full-
Owner
Social
Private
time
time
Occupier
renter
renter
9
9
11
9
9
NB for tables 1 – 6, all responses which are significantly different to the average are displayed in
bold.
44
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
13
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Overall
Area
average
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-
Walsham
10
11
5
the-Sea
5
16
12
7
16
Table 2: % of citizens who would most like to see theatre protected, as far as possible, from
cuts
Overall
Age
Work status
Tenure
average
16-34
7
35-44
9
45-54
4
7
55-64
8
65+
Full-
Not full-
Owner
Social
Private
time
time
Occupier
renter
renter
8
6
6
Overall
7
5
6
Area
average
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-
Walsham
7
8
5
8
the-Sea
4
11
5
5
Table 3: % of citizens who would most like to see museums and galleries protected, as far as
possible, from cuts
Overall
Age
Work status
Tenure
average
16-34
5
5
35-44
7
45-54
5
55-64
5
65+
4
Full-
Not full-
Owner
Social
Private
time
time
Occupier
renter
renter
7
4
45
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
4
4
12
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Overall
Area
average
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-
Walsham
5
6
6
3
the-Sea
4
1
5
16
Areas where there is less concern about cutting
Q
And which 5 things would you be least concerned about cutting?
Arts
Theatres
Museums/galleries
Local transport information
Sport/leisure facilities
Doorstep recycling
Libraries
Economic development
Environmental health
Public toilets
Parks and open spaces
Community safety
Keeping public and clear of litter and refuse
Local bus services
Community Services
Local tips/household waste recycling centres
Refuse collection
70%
65%
58%
36%
34%
26%
24%
22%
17%
14%
12%
11%
10%
7%
6%
5%
3%
Base: All valid responses
Despite the importance attached to local public transport services, residents are willing to
see cutbacks in provision of local transport information (36%). Fewer than one in ten
citizens in each sub-group say that they would like to see spending protected here, and the
only group significantly more likely than average to say so are those aged 55 – 64 (9%).
Table 4: % of citizens who would most like to see local transport information protected, as far
as possible, from cuts
Overall
Age
Work status
Tenure
average
16-34
6
2
35-44
3
45-54
5
55-64
9
65+
6
Full-
Not full-
Owner
Social
Private
time
time
Occupier
renter
renter
3
7
46
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
5
9
5
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Overall
Area
average
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells-next-
Walsham
6
5
3
9
the-Sea
5
4
9
5
Previous sections of the report have already identified potential savings in some
environmental services, such as parks and open spaces.
With regard to parks and open spaces, it should be borne in mind that, as with sports and
leisure services, younger people tend to rate these services more highly than older people.
For example, 42% of people aged 16-34 and 25% of those aged 35-44 want to see spending
in this area protected, compared to just 9% of those aged over 65. Respondents in North
Walsham (27%) are also slightly more likely than average (21%) to want to see spending
protected here.
Table 5: % of citizens who would most like to see parks and open spaces protected, as far as
possible, from cuts
Overall
Age
Work status
Tenure
average
16-34
21
35-44
25
42
45-54
20
55-64
17
65+
Full-
Not full-
Owner
Social
Private
time
time
Occupier
renter
renter
30
24
22
9
Overall
20
19
Area
average
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North
Sheringham
Stalham
Walsham
21
25
16
18
27
47
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Wells-nextthe-Sea
15
12
13
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Sports and leisure facilities are another area in which cutbacks could be considered. It is
both an area which people say they are not particularly concerned about cutting (34%) and
also one with which few people are currently dissatisfied (14%). It is also one of the areas
which people are least likely to think of as important in making somewhere a good place to
live (8%) or as needing improvement locally (10%).
However, an important proviso to make here is the fact that younger residents are more
inclined to view these facilities as important (as referenced earlier in this report). Indeed, one
of the key challenges will be to balance the views and priorities of the majority of residents
(many of whom are older citizens) with the longer-term need for sustaining a vibrant and
forward-looking district which offers sufficient opportunities to new generations.
Table 6: % of citizens who would most like to see sports and leisure facilities protected, as far
as possible, from cuts
Overall
Age
Work status
Tenure
average
16-34
17
35-44
25
39
45-54
19
55-64
12
65+
Full-
Not full-
Owner
Social
Private
time
time
Occupier
renter
renter
14
22
9
22
Overall
16
17
Area
average
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North
Sheringham
Stalham
Walsham
17
17
20
10
22
48
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Wells-nextthe-Sea
19
12
9
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Appendices
49
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Appendices
Appendix 1: Developing Priorities for Improving Quality of Life:
Extra Charts
We should add a cautionary note about the following charts, in that some of them are based
on small base sizes (Wells-next-the-Sea and the 16-34 age group in particular), and so
findings should be considered with that in mind. Base sizes are noted in the bottom left-hand
corner of each chart.
As a general rule, we would suggest that around 100 responses is a sample size large
enough to provide robust sub-group data. Responses from sub-groups with fewer than 100
responses should be treated with some caution.
By Nearest Town
In most areas, the priorities of local citizens are the same as those expressed district-wide:
public transport, job prospects and affordable decent housing. There are some other local
priorities which are identified here though. In Sheringham, the particular focus is on health
services, while in Stalham, residents are more likely than any other region to prioritise
coastal management. In Fakenham there is a greater focus on wage levels.
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
Cromer
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Activities for teenagers
Job prospects
Wages/ cost of living
Affordable decent housing
40
Road/pavement
maintenance
Traffic
congestion
30
Facilities for
young children
20
Coastal
Management
Community
activities
Sports &
leisure
10
Broadband
connection
Pollution
Cultural facilities
Race relations
Parks and open spaces
0
0
10
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 - 152, Q2 - 139)
Public transport
Shopping
Level of crime
Clean streets
Education
Access to nature
30
40
% Important generally
50
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
50
Health services
60
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
Fakenham
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Activities for
teenagers
40
Road/pavement
maintenance
Affordable decent housing
Broadband
connection
Public transport
30
Sports &
leisure
20
Coastal
Management
10
Job prospects
Wages/ cost of living
Parks and
Facilities for
young children open spaces
Shopping
Clean streets
Traffic
Community congestion
Education
activities
Pollution
Race relations
Health services
Level of crime
Cultural
facilities
0
0
10
20
Access to nature
30
40
% Important generally
Base: All valid responses (Q1 - 138, Q2 - 134)
50
60
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
Holt
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Affordable decent housing
40
Activities for
teenagers
30
Road/pavement
maintenance
20
Broadband
connection
Public transport
Community
activities
Race
relations Sports &
leisure
0
0
Traffic
congestion
Wages/
cost of living
Facilities for
young children
Coastal
Management
10
Job prospects
10
Shopping Level of crime
Cultural facilities
Education
Clean streets
Pollution
Parks and
open spaces 20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 143, Q2 – 129)
Health services
Access to nature
30
40
% Important generally
51
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
50
60
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
North Walsham
% Most need improving locally
60
Job prospects
Activities for
teenagers
Road/pavement
maintenance
50
40
Affordable decent housing
Wages/
cost of living
Broadband connection Community
Public transport
activities
Coastal
Facilities for
Management
young children
Traffic
20
Clean streets
congestion
Shopping
Sports &
leisure
10
Pollution
Education
Race relations
Access to nature
Cultural facilities
30
Level of crime
Health services
0
0
10
Parks and 20
open spaces
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 246, Q2 – 237)
30
40
% Important generally
50
60
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
Sheringham
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Activities for teenagers
Broadband connection
40
Road/pavement
maintenance
30
Affordable decent housing
Job prospects
Traffic
congestion
Health services
Wages/ cost of living
20
Coastal
Management
Facilities for
young children
Sports &
leisure
Race relations
10
0
0
Shopping
Clean streets
Community
activities
Parks and open spaces
Cultural
facilities
Pollution
10
Education
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 108, Q2 – 99)
Public transport
Level of crime
Access to nature
30
40
% Important generally
50
52
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
60
70
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
Stalham
% Most need improving locally
60
Public transport
Activities for
teenagers
50
Road/pavement
maintenance
40
Job prospects
30
Coastal
Management
Affordable decent housing
Broadband connection
Wages/ cost of living
20
Community
activities Clean streets
Sports & Facilities for
young children
leisure
Cultural facilities
Race relations
Pollution
Traffic
congestion
10
0
0
10
Shopping
Level of crime
Health services
Education
Access to nature
Parks and open spaces
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 142, Q2 – 129)
30
40
% Important generally
50
60
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
Wells-next-the-Sea
% Most need improving locally
60
Affordable decent housing
Activities for teenagers
50
40
Broadband
connection
30
Sports &
leisure
20
Road/pavement
maintenance
Job prospects
Wages/ cost of living
Public transport
Shopping
Facilities for
young children
Traffic
congestion
Health services
Coastal
Management
Community
activities
Parks and
Education
open spaces
Cultural facilities
Race relations
Clean streets
10
Level of crime
Access to nature
0
0
Pollution
10
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 48, Q2 – 45)
30
40
% Important generally
53
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
50
60
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
By Age Group
Affordable housing is a priority across all age groups, with job prospects and public transport
also prominent. Job prospects are, perhaps understandably, slightly less of a concern
among older residents aged 55 and above; public transport is less of a priority only for the
35-54 age group. Younger people under the age of 35 have the most priorities, also being
concerned about the local cost of living/ wage levels and shopping facilities (although the low
base size for this group means that these findings are not sufficiently robust to draw firm
conclusions).
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
16-34s
% Most need improving locally
60
Activities for teenagers
50
Job prospects
Broadband
connection Facilities for
Wages/
young children
cost of living
Road/pavement
maintenance
Public transport
40
30
Community
Traffic
Sports & activities
congestion
leisure
Coastal
Management
Cultural facilities
Shopping
20
10
Level of crime
Access to nature
Race relations
Parks and
open spaces
Pollution
0
0
10
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 43, Q2 – 43)
Affordable decent housing
Health services
Education
Clean streets
30
40
% Important generally
50
60
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
35-44
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Broadband
connection
40
Road/pavement
maintenance
30
Coastal
Management
20
10
Race relations
0
0
Public transport
Traffic
congestion
Community
activities
Job prospects
Activities for teenagers
Wages/
cost of living
Affordable decent housing
Facilities for
young children Shopping
Clean streets
Health services
Education
Cultural facilities Parks and open spaces
Sports &
Pollution
leisure
10
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 93, Q2 – 85)
Access to nature Level of crime
30
40
% Important generally
54
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
50
60
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
45-54
% Most need improving locally
60
Activities for teenagers
50
Job prospects
Affordable decent housing
40
Broadband
connection
30
Road/pavement
maintenance
20
Facilities for
young children
Sports &
leisure
10
0
Race relations
Wages/ cost of living
Traffic
congestion
Coastal
Shopping
Management
Clean streets
Community
Education
activities
Cultural facilities
Pollution
0
Public transport
Health services
Access to nature
Level of crime
Parks and open spaces
10
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 138, Q2 – 131)
30
40
% Important generally
50
60
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
55-64
% Most need improving locally
60
50
Job prospects
Activities for teenagers
40
Affordable decent housing
Road/pavement
maintenance
Broadband
connection
30
Public transport
Wages/ cost of living
Coastal
Management
20
Facilities for
young children
10
Community
activities
Sports & Pollution
leisure
0
Race relations
0
Parks and
open spaces
10
Health services
Traffic
Shopping
congestion
Clean streets
Education
Cultural facilities
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 229, Q2 – 215)
Level of crime
Access to nature
30
40
% Important generally
50
55
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
60
70
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Developing priorities for improving quality of life:
over 65s
% Most need improving locally
60
Road/pavement
maintenance
50
Activities for
teenagers
40
30
Coastal
Management
Wages/
Clean streets
cost of living
Facilities for
20young children
Community
activities
Sports &
leisure
Public transport
Shopping
Health services
Level of crime
Education
Race relations
Pollution
0
Affordable decent housing
Traffic
congestion
Broadband
connection
10
Job prospects
Cultural facilities
Access to nature
Parks and open spaces
0
10
20
Base: All valid responses (Q1 – 440, Q2 – 405)
30
40
% Important generally
50
56
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
60
70
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Appendix 2: Full Questionnaire
North Norfolk Local Priorities
Section 1: About your local area
By your local area, we mean the area which includes your nearest grocery
stores, newsagents, doctor’s practice and primary school.
Q1
Q2
Thinking generally, which 4 or 5 things below would you say are most important in making
somewhere a good place to live? PLEASE TICK 9 UP TO FIVE BOXES IN THE LEFT HAND
COLUMN BELOW
And thinking about this local area, which 4 or 5 things below, if any, do you think most need
improving? PLEASE TICK 9 UP TO FIVE BOXES IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN BELOW
Q1
Q2
Most important in
Most needs
making
improving in
somewhere a
this local area
good place to live
‰
‰
Access to nature........................................................
‰
‰
Activities for teenagers ..............................................
‰
‰
Affordable decent housing.........................................
‰
‰
Broadband connection
‰
‰
Clean streets .............................................................
‰
‰
Coastal Management e.g. defence / management
‰
‰
Community activities ................................................
‰
‰
Cultural facilities (e.g. libraries, museums) ...............
‰
‰
Education provision ...................................................
‰
‰
Facilities for young children.......................................
‰
‰
Health services ..........................................................
‰
‰
Job prospects ............................................................
‰
‰
The level of crime ......................................................
‰
‰
The level of pollution .................................................
‰
‰
The level of traffic congestion....................................
‰
‰
Parks and open spaces.............................................
‰
‰
Public transport..........................................................
‰
‰
Race relations............................................................
‰
‰
Road and pavement repairs ......................................
‰
‰
Shopping facilities .....................................................
‰
‰
Sports and leisure facilities........................................
‰
‰
Wage levels and local cost of living ..........................
‰
‰
None of these ............................................................
‰
‰
Don’t know.................................................................
Q3
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?
Q4
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
‰
Very satisfied .....................................
Fairly dissatisfied ................................
‰
Fairly satisfied....................................
Very dissatisfied..................................
‰
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied........
Overall, how strongly you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Very strongly......................................
Fairly strongly ....................................
Don’t Know
‰
‰
‰
57
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Not very strongly.................................
Not at all strongly ................................
‰
‰
‰
‰
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Section 2: Your local public services
For these questions, please answer in relation to the service nearest to you
Q5
Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services nearest
to where you live
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH SERVICE
Your local police
force…………
Your local Fire and
Rescue
Service………………
Your GP (family
doctor)….
Your local hospital e.g.
community / cottage
hospital…….
Your acute hospital .e.
Norwich and Norfolk,
James Padget, Queen
Elizabeth
Your local
dentist…………..
Norfolk County
Council……
North Norfolk District
Council…………..
Your parish or town
council
Local Area
Partnerships
(Fakenham Area
Partnership, Wells
Area Partnership,
Sheringham Area
Partnership, Holt Area
Partnership, Cromer
Area Partnership,
North Walsham Area
Partnership, Stalham
with Happing Area
Partnership)
………………
Very
satisfied
‰
Fairly
satisfied
‰
Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied
‰
Fairly
dissatisfied
‰
Very
dissatisfied
‰
Don’t
know
‰
Haven’t
used the
service
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
58
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Q6
For those services that need improving in your local area, tell us how they need to be
improved?
PLEASE TICK 9 ALL WHICH APPLY
Your local police force…………
Your local Fire and Rescue Service………………
Your GP (family doctor)….
Your local hospital e.g. community / cottage hospital…….
Your acute hospital .e. Norwich and Norfolk, James
Padget, Queen Elizabeth
Your local dentist…………..
Norfolk County Council……
North Norfolk District Council…………..
Your parish or town council
Local Area Partnerships (Fakenham Area Partnership,
Wells Area Partnership, Sheringham Area Partnership,
Holt Area Partnership, Cromer Area Partnership, North
Walsham Area Partnership, Stalham with Happing Area
Partnership)……………………………………………..
59
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Quality of
provision
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
Availability of
service
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Section 3: Your local council
Q7
North Norfolk District Council and Norfolk County Council are also key providers of
public services locally, so we would like your views on some of the services they
provide. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following services
provided or supported by your local councils?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH SERVICE
Very
Fairly
Neither
satisfied satisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
‰
‰
‰
Arts e.g. exhibitions,
festivals, concerts,
workshops and events
‰
‰
‰
Community Safety e.g.
CCTV, Tackling anti
social behaviour
‰
‰
‰
Community Services
e.g. safeguarding
vulnerable children
and adults, health.
‰
‰
‰
Doorstep recycling .........
‰
‰
‰
Economic
development e.g.
promoting
employment,
supporting businesses
and skills training
‰
‰
‰
Environmental health
e.g. food safety,
pollution control,
licensing.
‰
‰
‰
Keeping public land
clear of litter and
refuse ............................
‰
‰
‰
Libraries .........................
‰
‰
‰
Local tips/Household
waste recycling
centres…………………
….
‰
‰
‰
Local transport
information……………
…
‰
‰
‰
Local bus
services………
‰
‰
‰
Museums/galleries .........
‰
‰
‰
Parks and open
spaces............................
‰
‰
‰
Public Toilets
‰
‰
‰
Refuse
collection………………
..
‰
‰
‰
Sport/leisure facilities .....
‰
‰
‰
Theatres.........................
60
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Don’t
know
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Q8 In the current climate of public sector spending cuts, which of the 5 things below would you
most like to see protected, as far as possible, from cuts. PLEASE TICK 9 UP TO FIVE BOXES
ONLY IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN BELOW
Q9 And which 5 things would you be least concerned about cutting? PLEASE TICK 9 UP TO
FIVE BOXES ONLY IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN BELOW
Top 5 priorities
Arts e.g. exhibitions, festivals, concerts, workshops
and events
Community Safety e.g. CCTV, Tackling anti social
behaviour
Community Services e.g. safeguarding vulnerable
children and adults, health.
Doorstep recycling.........................................................
Economic development e.g. promoting employment,
supporting businesses and skills training
Environmental Health e.g. food safety, pollution
control and licensing
Keeping public land clear of litter and refuse ...............
Libraries.........................................................................
Local tips/Household waste recycling
centres…………………….
Local transport information………………
Local bus services………
Museums/galleries.........................................................
Parks and open spaces.................................................
Public Toilets
Refuse collection………………..
Sport/leisure facilities.....................................................
Theatres
Q10
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local council provides value for
money?
A. My local parish or town
council
B. North Norfolk District
Council
C. Norfolk County Council
Q11
‰
Bottom 5
priorities
‰
Strongly
Agree
‰
Tend
to agree
‰
Neither agree
or disagree
‰
Tend to
disagree
‰
Strongly
disagree
‰
Don’t
know
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
And now taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with
the way your local council runs things?
A. My local parish or town
council
B. North Norfolk District
Council
C. Norfolk County Council
Very
satisfied
Fairly
satisfied
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Don’t
know
‰
Neither
satisfied or
dissatisfied
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
61
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Section 4: Local decision-making
Again, by your local area, we mean the area which includes your nearest grocery stores,
newsagents, doctor’s practice and primary school.
North Norfolk District Council provides opportunities for people to get involved in decisionmaking in your local area. Some examples of these are consultation exercises, surveys like
this questionnaire, service user groups, and youth forums.
Q12
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the opportunities for participation in local
decision-making provided by North Norfolk District Council?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Very satisfied .....................................
Fairly satisfied....................................
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied........
Q13
Fairly dissatisfied ................................
Very dissatisfied..................................
Don’t know ..........................................
‰
‰
‰
Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Definitely
Tend to
Tend to
agree
agree
disagree
‰
‰
‰
Q14
‰
‰
‰
Definitely
disagree
‰
Don’t
know
‰
Generally speaking, would you like to be more involved in the decisions that affect your
local area?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Yes
‰
No
Depends on the
issue
‰
‰
Don’t know
‰
IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED NO OR DON’T KNOW AT Q14, PLEASE GO STRAIGHT TO Q17. IF
YOU ANSWERED YES OR DEPENDS ON THE ISSUE, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH Q15
62
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Q15
In which, if any of the following ways would you like to be more involved?
PLEASE TICK 9 ALL WHICH APPLY TO YOU
‰ Taking part in a campaign about a local issue e.g. save your local
hospital, local transport etc
Taking part in an on-line campaign e.g. Facebook, other social media,
other websites
Volunteering e.g. village hall committee, school governor, befriender,
driver, charity shop
Paying a subscription to a local charity e.g. Break, Benjamin Foundation,
Age UK North Norfolk
Contacting my local councillor or member of parliament
‰ Standing for election myself (e.g. Parish, Town or District Council)
‰ Helping with fundraising drives
‰ Writing letters to an editor (local, national papers, magazines etc)
‰ Attending a public meeting
‰ Responding to a survey
‰ Attending a focus group
‰ Voting in local elections
‰ Other involvement (Please tick the box and write in below)
‰ Don’t know
‰ 63
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
‰ ‰ ‰ 10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Q16
What would help you to get involved with making decisions about your local area?
PLEASE TICK 9 ALL THAT APPLY TO YOU
If I was able to use the internet
‰
Better public transport links
‰
Help with childcare
‰
Help with care for a dependant (e.g. an elderly or ill relative)
‰
Improved disabled access
‰ Costs/expenses paid
‰ Being more informed about what’s happening locally
‰ Hearing about how other people have got involved in my local
community
Information about how to become a local representative
‰ Information about how to start a community group
‰ Information about how to stand for election, or how to become a local
representative
Opportunities to learn new skills, for example (How to write a newsletter,
How to chair a meeting, How to fundraise, How to organise an event)
‰ I don’t want to be involved
‰ If I was asked
‰ If I knew what was being decided on
‰ If I understood how the decision making process worked
‰
I don’t want to be involved
‰ ‰ ‰ Section 5: Respect and consideration
Q17
To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from
different backgrounds get on well together?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Definitely
Tend to
Tend to
agree
agree
disagree
‰
‰
‰
Definitely
disagree
Don’t
know
‰
‰
64
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
Too few
people in
local area to
say
‰
All are from
the same
background
‰
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Section 6: About yourself
Please complete these questions which will help us to see if there are differences between the
views of different residents. All the information you give will be kept completely confidential.
Q18 Do you live in a :
•
•
Town
Village / countryside
Q19 My nearest town in North Norfolk (or the town I live in) is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cromer
Fakenham
Holt
North Walsham
Sheringham
Stalham
Wells Next The Sea
Q20 Do you have access to a car or van for your own personal use.
Yes
No
Q21
Are you male or female?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Male ........................................................ ‰
Q22
Female..................................................... ‰
What was your age on your last birthday?
PLEASE WRITE IN BOX BELOW
Years
Q23
How is your health in general? Would you say it is……
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Very good
Good
‰
‰
Q24
Fair
Bad
‰
‰
Very bad
‰
In which of these ways does your household occupy your current accommodation?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Owned outright.............................. ‰
Rent from Housing Association/ Trust ... ‰
Buying on mortgage...................... ‰
Rented from private landlord ................. ‰
Rent from council .......................... ‰
Other (9 AND WRITE IN BELOW)........ ‰
65
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Q25
And how many adults aged 18 or over are living here?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
One ................................................. ‰
Three...................................................... ‰
Two ................................................. ‰
Four........................................................ ‰
More than four (9 AND WRITE IN
‰
BELOW) .................................................
Q26
Which of these activities best describes what you are doing at present?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per
wk)
Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours
per week)
Self employed full or part-time
On a government supported training
programme (e.g. Modern Apprenticeship/
Training for Work)
Full-time education at school, college or
university
Q27
‰
Unemployed and available for work
‰
‰
Permanently sick/disabled
‰
‰
Wholly retired from work
‰
Looking after the home
‰
‰
‰
Doing something else (PLEASE
‰
WRITE IN BELOW) ..............................
Do you have any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity? (long-standing means
anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a
period of time) PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Yes (PLEASE CONTINUE TO Q31) ...... ‰
Q28
No (PLEASE GO TO Q32) ...................... ‰
Does this illness or disability limit your activities in any way?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
Yes.......................................................... ‰
66
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.
No ............................................................ ‰
10-030955 North Norfolk Local Priorities
Q29
To which of these groups do you consider you belong to?
PLEASE TICK 9 ONE BOX ONLY
White
Black or Black British
British
‰
Caribbean
‰
Irish
‰
African
‰
Any other White background
(9 AND WRITE IN BELOW)
‰
Any other Black background
(9 AND WRITE IN BELOW)
‰
Mixed
Asian or Asian British
White & Black Caribbean
‰
Indian
‰
White & Black African
‰
Pakistani
‰
White & Asian
‰
Bangladeshi
‰
Any other Mixed background
(9 AND WRITE IN BELOW)
‰
Any other Asian background
(9 AND WRITE IN BELOW)
‰
‰
Other ethnic group
(9 AND WRITE IN BELOW)
‰
Chinese and Other ethnic groups
Chinese
Thank you very much for taking part in this survey.
67
© 2010 Ipsos MORI.