CHAPELHALL REGENERATION GROUP
COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY 2002
SMART CONSULTANCY
JUNE 2002
CONTENTS
|
SECTION |
PAGE |
|
1. Background |
3 |
|
2. Methodology |
5 |
|
3. Questionnaire Results |
6 |
|
4. Focus Groups – Key
Issues |
16 |
|
5. Consultations with
Young People |
19 |
|
6. Conclusions |
21 |
|
7. Recommendations for
Action |
23 |
1. BACKGROUND
Chapelhall
Regeneration Group
Chapelhall Regeneration
Group (CGR) is a community group consisting of local people who have come
together to lobby for and deliver changes in the village of Chapelhall. Since its formation in 2000, the group has
delivered a series of environmental improvements.
Community Needs
Survey
In early 2002, the
group successfully applied for funding to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to
undertake a systematic study of community needs. The results of this would be used to help the GRG prioritise
developments, and to make the best case for new services and resources in the
village.
Smart Consultancy
was commissioned to undertake this work.
The specific objectives detailed were:
To assess the
priorities of local people for action to improve service provision in Chapelhall
Within this, to
ensure the views of all sections of the community were represented, in
particular those of young people and people who tend to be “excluded” from
mainstream consultative exercises
To provide the CRG
with robust evidence which could inform and strengthen future funding
applications
To ensure the CRG’s
future action plan reflects local needs
To provide some
general ideas on potential funding opportunities for the priority developments
To encourage wider
community involvement in CRG activities
Chapelhall
Chapelhall is
located in central North Lanarkshire, approximately 3 miles south of the town
of Airdrie. It is a traditional mining
village, although mining activity has long since ended in the area. The original village has now expanded considerably,
with the addition of a number of modern housing estates.
Chapelhall had an
estimated population in 1999 of 4,918, with 1,916 total residences. This represented an increase of 12% since 1991,
making it one of the fastest growing communities in North Lanarkshire. The age profile of the population largely
reflects the local authority average, with a slightly higher percentage aged
between 18 and 29[1].
The area suffers
from relative deprivation, reflected in its inclusion by the Scottish Executive
in the North Lanarkshire Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP) area.
2. METHODOLOGY
The methodology
used for this survey had three elements:
A community
questionnaire circulated in key venues throughout the village – the library,
the Post Office and the chip shop. The
questionnaires were also promoted at the various group discussions detailed
below
A series of
consultations with young people involving both informal group discussions in
schools, and work to discuss issues with young people on the streets of the
village
Three focus group
discussions in local community venues – with the local Women’s Group, the
Senior Citizen’s Bowling Club, and people attending the Chapelhall slimming
club
The methodology
was designed to achieve a number of objectives:
To ensure a wide
range of inputs and involvement
To gather the views
of people unlikely to respond to traditional questionnaires – most
significantly teenagers, and people “excluded” from mainstream processes
To enable a mix of
quantitative information (through questionnaires) to be complemented by more qualitative information (through focus
groups)
These objectives
were achieved in practice. In total:
82 community
questionnaires were completed
38 local people
participated in focus groups
75 young people were
engaged through schools or street-work
The various
elements of fieldwork were undertaken in the spring of 2002.
3. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Introduction
A total of 82
questionnaires were completed in the course of the survey. This is a reasonable response, especially given
the relative complexity of the form, which ran to a total of 25 questions. It is not possible to give a “response rate”
as the circulation of the questionnaire was not controlled in this way: rather
it was made available as widely as possible in the village.
The questionnaire
contained a combination of “closed” and “open” questions to enable a range of
responses. In the open questions
category a number of useful comments were received, but as was to be expected a
lot of respondents said little. The
closed questions were normally answered in the responses, but again some
questions were left blank, this results in slightly varying response rates by
individual questions. Percentage rates
are applied to compensate for this.
For each question
analysed below, the results are provided followed by a brief commentary on
their significance.
General
Chapelhall as a place to live:
|
Very good |
7% |
|
Good |
36% |
|
Neither good or
bad |
41% |
|
Bad |
15% |
|
Very bad |
1% |
This demonstrates a
reasonably high overall level of satisfaction or neutrality with life in the
village.
What has happened to the quality of life in the past 5 years?
|
Improved
considerably |
1% |
|
Improved
slightly |
21% |
|
Remained the
same |
40% |
|
Declined slightly |
16% |
|
Declined
considerably |
21% |
The results are
mixed with no clear pattern. On
balance, more people feel the quality of life is declining 37% to 22%. This is of some concern.
Community
Services
Sports Facilities
|
Very good |
3% |
|
Good |
3% |
|
Not good or bad |
1% |
|
Not very good |
22% |
|
Not at all good |
72% |
Leisure Facilities
|
Very good |
1% |
|
Good |
5% |
|
Not good or bad |
8% |
|
Not very good |
32% |
|
Not at all good |
54% |
Facilities for Young People
|
Very good |
3% |
|
Good |
1% |
|
Not good or bad |
5% |
|
Not very good |
23% |
|
Not at all good |
68% |
Facilities for Older People
|
Very good |
0% |
|
Good |
29% |
|
Not good or bad |
26% |
|
Not very good |
36% |
|
Not at all good |
8% |
Library
|
Very good |
43% |
|
Good |
47% |
|
Not good or bad |
6% |
|
Not very good |
3% |
|
Not at all good |
3% |
Information Services
|
Very good |
4% |
|
Good |
11% |
|
Not good or bad |
21% |
|
Not very good |
37% |
|
Not at all good |
27% |
Childcare
|
Very good |
7% |
|
Good |
12% |
|
Not good or bad |
32% |
|
Not very good |
18% |
|
Not at all good |
32% |
The results indicate a significant level of dissatisfaction with all community services except the library, which is highly rated. The highest and most severe levels of dissatisfaction are clearly in the initial three services – sports, leisure provision, and facilities for young people.
This was further reflected in the response to the open question on the top two priorities for improvements in community facilities. As a first preference, 33 respondents indicated improved facilities for young people, with 8 listing this as a second preference. A total of 30 people listed sports and leisure facilities as either a first or second preference. No other issues were mentioned more than five times: the priorities are quite clear.
Environmental
Services
Street Litter
|
Very unhappy |
68% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
24% |
|
Fairly happy |
9% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Graffiti/vandalism
|
Very unhappy |
74% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
23% |
|
Fairly happy |
1% |
|
Very happy |
1% |
Derelict Land/Vacant Sites
|
Very unhappy |
55% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
39% |
|
Fairly happy |
5% |
|
Very happy |
1% |
Rubbish Dumping/Fly Tipping
|
Very unhappy |
57% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
36% |
|
Fairly happy |
7% |
|
Very happy |
1% |
Abandoned Vehicles
|
Very unhappy |
31% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
42% |
|
Fairly happy |
26% |
|
Very happy |
1% |
Condition of Footpaths
|
Very unhappy |
39% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
39% |
|
Fairly happy |
22% |
|
Very happy |
1% |
Condition of Roads
|
Very unhappy |
42% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
38% |
|
Fairly happy |
21% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Condition of Children’s Playparks
|
Very unhappy |
78% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
15% |
|
Fairly happy |
7% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Condition of play/dog walking areas
|
Very unhappy |
76% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
16% |
|
Fairly happy |
8% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Lorries travelling through Chapelhall
|
Very unhappy |
76% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
19% |
|
Fairly happy |
5% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Appearance of shopping areas
|
Very unhappy |
48% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
29% |
|
Fairly happy |
22% |
|
Very happy |
1% |
Appearance of Chapelhall’s main streets
|
Very unhappy |
53% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
33% |
|
Fairly happy |
14% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Access
to recycling facilities
|
Very unhappy |
75% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
23% |
|
Fairly happy |
1% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
The results
indicate a fairly high and general level of dissatisfaction across all the environmental
services surveyed. There are no issues
where the levels of satisfaction are higher than the levels of
dissatisfaction. From the figures, the
levels of priority are not immediate apparent, but the following tests is
suggested to identify these - where the level of “very unhappy” is over 70% and
the level of satisfaction under 10%. By
this test the following issues rank as worst:
The condition of
children’s playparks
The condition of
play/dog walking areas
Lorries travelling
through Chapelhall
Access to recycling
facilities
Graffiti/vandalism
In terms of the
two top priorities for environmental improvements, the spread is more even than
for the community services category.
The top 4, in order, were:
reduction in the
number and speed of lorries travelling through Chapelhall
action to reduce
street litter and glass
improvements to play
areas
improvements to the
appearance of the main streets/shopping areas
Community Safety
How safe do you feel walking alone at night
|
Very safe |
6% |
|
Fairly safe |
35% |
|
Fairly unsafe |
25% |
|
Very unsafe |
33% |
|
Don’t know |
1% |
How safe do you feel using public transport at night?
|
Very safe |
12% |
|
Fairly safe |
31% |
|
Fairly unsafe |
23% |
|
Very unsafe |
17% |
|
Don’t know |
17% |
How safe do you feel in your own home?
|
Very safe |
45% |
|
Fairly safe |
48% |
|
Fairly unsafe |
6% |
|
Very unsafe |
1% |
|
Don’t know |
0% |
How worried are you about being a victim of crime in Chapelhall?
|
Very worried |
14% |
|
Fairly worried |
38% |
|
Not very worried |
41% |
|
Not at all
worried |
6% |
The overall levels
of concern at being the victim of crime are relatively high, with just over 50%
of respondents indicating some level of concern. Within this, being out alone at night is clearly the area of
greatest concern. Most people would
appear to feel safe in their home.
The overwhelming
reason why people are worried about being a victim of crime is the presence of
groups of young people in the main streets, who are often viewed as drunk,
abusive and threatening. This concern
is clearly more prevalent amongst the elderly.
How satisfied are you with the level of visible police presence in Chapelhall?
|
Very satisfied |
3% |
|
Fairly satisfied |
9% |
|
Fairly
unsatisfied |
19% |
|
Very unsatisfied |
62% |
|
Don’t Know |
6% |
How satisfied are you with police response times?
|
Very satisfied |
3% |
|
Fairly satisfied |
11% |
|
Fairly
unsatisfied |
18% |
|
Very unsatisfied |
40% |
|
Don’t Know |
29% |
The results
clearly indicate a considerable level of dissatisfaction, particularly with a
visible police presence. This is
reinforced in responses to other open questions, where considerable references are
made about the lack of “police on the beat”, and on the perceived inadequate
policing response to young people “hanging about/drinking/causing bother” in
the main streets and around the shops.
Would the presence of more CCTV cameras make you feel safer?
|
YES |
78% |
|
NO |
22% |
This is a large
percentage in favour, and a number of the people against indicated their opposition was not to CCTV
per se, but if it became an alternative to less policing. In terms of the location of CCTV surveillance,
the most common places mentioned were the shops in Lauchope Street and at the
senior citizen’s centre.
Street Lighting
|
Very unhappy |
9% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
24% |
|
Fairly happy |
62% |
|
Very happy |
4% |
Traffic speed through the village
|
Very unhappy |
59% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
28% |
|
Fairly happy |
13% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Provision of pedestrian crossings
|
Very unhappy |
65% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
25% |
|
Fairly happy |
9% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
Provision of school traffic wardens
|
Very unhappy |
7% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
17% |
|
Fairly happy |
56% |
|
Very happy |
20% |
Dangerous litter
|
Very unhappy |
78% |
|
Fairly unhappy |
18% |
|
Fairly happy |
4% |
|
Very happy |
0% |
From the above issues,
it is clear that there is a generally high level of satisfaction with street
lighting and the provision of traffic wardens.
But there is considerable concern about the presence of dangerous
litter, the provision of pedestrian crossings, and the traffic speeds through
the village. This reflects concerns
expressed in the earlier part of the questionnaire.
In terms of the
location of pedestrian crossings, a number of suggestions were made. The most common was at Lauchope Street near
the Co-op and the Senior Citizens Centre.
Should there be more traffic calming measures in order to reduce the speed of traffic throughout the village?
|
YES |
89% |
|
NO |
11% |
The results
clearly indicate a very high level of support for more measures of this nature.
In terms of
overall community safety improvements, the most common priorities in order
were:
traffic calming
measures
more policing (on the
streets)
pedestrian crossings
Public Transport
How satisfied are
you with the timing, frequency and destinations of public transport in
Chapelhall?
|
Very satisfied |
13% |
|
Fairly satisfied |
44% |
|
Not very
satisfied |
26% |
|
Not at all
satisfied |
16% |
This indicates a
fairly high level of satisfaction. Where
there was a level of dissatisfaction, the most popular reasons were:
the shortage or lack
of direct services to main population centres such as Glasgow and Motherwell
the infrequency and
unreliability of services in the evening and at weekends
Top Priorities
The questionnaire
finished with a general open question on the one change respondents would make
to improve life for people in Chapelhall.
Improved facilities for young people and more leisure facilities were
the main priorities by some margin.
Thereafter the next most important improvements requested were:
more police
a general clean up of
the main streets
improvements/clean up
of parks
Respondents
77 of the 82
respondents to the survey supplied their age:
|
Under 16 |
21% |
|
16-17 |
1% |
|
18-24 |
1% |
|
25-40 |
27% |
|
41-64 |
35% |
|
65+ |
14% |
The age range 16
to 24 is significantly under represented in the survey returns. This was anticipated, and is common in
surveys of this nature. The views of these
groups were primarily sought through other mechanisms, the results of which are
detailed below.
62 of the 82 (76%)
respondents supplied their address when completing the questionnaire, and 40
(48%) indicated they would like more information on the work of the Chapelhall
Regeneration Group. This provides a
useful mailing list for the group, and the basis to advance one of the overall
objectives of this survey – to encourage wider involvement in the Group’s activities.
4. FOCUS GROUPS – KEY ISSUES
Details of the
Groups
Three focus groups
were convened as part of the survey.
These were as follows:
|
GROUP |
NO OF PARTICIPANTS |
|
Chapelhall
Women’s Group |
13 |
|
Chapelhall
Weightwatchers Club |
12 |
|
Senior Citizen’s
Bowling Club |
13 |
|
TOTAL |
38 |
Across the 3
groups, 29 participants were women, and 9 men.
Discussions lasted
for between 30 minutes and an hour.
Key Issues
Emerging
The main issues emerging
from the groups reinforced and confirmed the findings of the
questionnaires. In summary, the key
concerns of each of the groups were as follows.
Chapelhall Women’s Group
The most significant
problem identified was of young people “hanging around” the main streets –
particularly at night. Under age
drinking was rife and many of the young people were abusive and threatening. A
hard core of young people were viewed as causing most problems. It was recognised that these young people
suffered through a lack of nothing to do, but this was not in itself an
excuse. Additional facilities were
viewed as of some importance – such as youth club or a youth shelter, but there
was concern these would simply be vandalised
The conditions of the
play areas throughout the village was generally very poor. Facilities in terms of swings etc were in
disrepair, dog fouling was a problem and the parks were generally strewn with
litter. Improvements in these areas was
a priority
There was a visible
lack of police presence in the village, and what there was tended to be through
car patrols. The police were seen as
particularly ineffective in dealing with the problem of young people on the
streets
The condition of the
main streets – Lauchope and Woodhall – was seen as a problem, and a general
tidy up was viewed as a priority by most of the group
The speed and volume
of traffic through the village was a significant problem. General support was expressed for traffic
calming measures on the two main streets
Parking on the
pavements was a further problem which was both inconvenient and potentially
dangerous – especially for young mothers with prams. Action to stop this should be introduced
The end of adult
education classes in the library was unpopular. Many in the group had attended and enjoyed these. Alternative classes were too far away
Chapelhall Weightwatcher’s Club
Considerable concern
was expressed on the volume and speed of traffic – particularly on Lauchope
Street. A bypass would be the ideal
solution, but failing this traffic
calming measures should be introduced
The problem of young
people hanging about with nothing to do required action. The police appeared unable to satisfactorily
address this, new facilities for young people was the longer term solution,
these could include a youth club and outdoor facilities such as a skate-park
Some key public areas
needed to be improved/tidied up.
Priorities mentioned were the areas around the bookmakers and behind the
billboards at Kwik-Save
The play-parks were
viewed as a “mess”. Facilities should
be improved and a general tidy up was needed
There was a shortage
of affordable after school care services
Senior Citizen’s Bowling Club
Young people on the
streets “harassed” older people, particular those going into the senior
citizen’s centre. More supervision and
control of them was needed. CCTV around
the Senior Citizen’s Club would help
The speed and volume
of traffic passing through the village was a big problem, especially for older
and more infirm people. At times of day
some older people were “stranded” because of this. Speed restrictions and new pedestrian crossings on Lauchope Street and near the sheltered housing
complex were needed. Cars parking on
the pavements added to problems
The main streets were
“filthy”. Areas requiring particular
attention were listed as "Archie’s Garage”, the area around the bookies,
the Post Office and the paper shop. Overflowing
bins around the take away food shops added to the problems and mess
A stronger police
presence on the streets would make older people feel more safe
Action was needed on
the “derelict house” in Lauchope Street.
Without addressing this, other improvements would be of limited impact
Grass cutting
services in public areas could be improved.
In particular, the practice of cutting the grass but leaving the
cuttings was both unsightly and dangerous when wet
5. CONSULTATIONS WITH YOUNG PEOPLE
8 group discussions
with young people were held as part of the survey – 6 of these were informal
discussions on the streets, and two were held in schools with young people
living in Chapelhall.
75 young people in
total were involved in the discussions, which were based on use of a general
“prompt” sheet. The young people ranged
in age from 11 to 19 years old.
In response to
questions about what was good about living in Chapelhall a common response was
“nothing”. When prompted, most young
people said having friends around and knowing people was positive, but in
general they were negative
On negative things,
the overwhelmingly dominant issues were the lack of things to do and “nowhere
to go”
The main issues
facing young people were viewed as something else to do as opposed to hanging
around the streets. A number of young
people felt that adults couldn’t be “bothered” to lay on anything for
them. The young people appeared to
accept that they were responsible for a lot of the mess, but as “no-one else
cares why should we?”
Young people were
fairly confident they would find work when they needed to, but accepted this
would not be in Chapelhall
On the issue of
learning, young people were fairly satisfied with schools. Longer opening of the library was suggested
- “just for young people”. At present
the library was largely seen as for use by adults
The young people’s
views on safety were varied. Some felt
safe as the “young team” always looked out for people from Chapelhall. Others didn’t like to go out at night
Young people, like
adults, were concerned about the general amount of litter on the two main
streets, and the state of parks. A
general clean up was required. Public
seating in appropriate areas of the village was also favoured by many
respondents, as were public art murals
There was concern
about the lack of leisure and fitness facilities. Most young people had to “walk about the village” to keep fit
Many of the young
people involved in discussions indicated they would be prepared to get more
involved in their local community. But
they were unaware of any way to do this.
Generally they felt that they were not listened to and frequently
misrepresented. Some interest in
finding out more about the Regeneration Group was expressed
In general young
people felt most facilities were designed for adults and not them. A more even balance of access to the library
and Mount Pleasant Community Centre was requested
Finally, young people
were asked the one key thing they would change tomorrow to improve life for
young people in Chapelhall. The
overwhelming priority was for a youth club – mentioned a total of 47
times. The other leading priorities
(but all well behind the youth club) were for discos, bins in the park, and a
roller blade/skating area
6. CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
The survey work
has gathered the views of a wide range of people in Chapelhall. In total, approaching 200 people have been involved
in some way in the consultations. The
methodology used has sought to ensure that all sections of the community have
been engaged ranging from “excluded” young people to older groups.
As a result, a significant
amount of information is now available to the Regeneration Group on which to
base further action.
A number of
headline conclusions are apparent from the results of the survey:
In general, views are
mixed on Chapelhall as a place to live, with slightly more people happy than
unhappy. But more people feel the
village has declined rather than improved in recent years
On particular issues,
there is a significant level of dissatisfaction within almost all the
categories covered in the survey. The
only services which received a net “positive rating” were the library, street
lighting, and the provision of school traffic wardens
The levels of
dissatisfaction identified provide the Regeneration Group with a large
potential development package to pursue.
This will require significant resources
The priority areas
identified by the varying groups in the survey are relatively common. But they are often expressed in a different
way and with different proposed solutions.
The most obvious issue in this regard is young people hanging about the
streets. Older people view this as a
problem to be dealt with – often by more policing/control. Young people agree, but see the answer as
providing more socially acceptable alternatives
This raises an issue
which could provide a key theme of future Regeneration Group work - how to
develop activities which unite rather than divide the community by age. A consistent feature of discussions has been
one of young people being viewed – and aware of being viewed – as the source of
many problems. But the general concerns
expressed are often shared between the generations – litter, a lack of
services, poor play/park areas, and traffic
The survey suggests
the CRG should prioritise future actions in four themes – (1) environmental
improvements (2) youth service developments (3) community safety and (4)
traffic related issues