D - From Survey to Action Plan
D. From Survey to Action Plan
D.1 Preamble
Since no ‘Village Appraisal’ was carried out in Arnside when the occasion arose five or six years ago, preparation of the Parish Plan effectively started with a blank sheet. A decision was taken from the first to make a major survey of the opinions of residents the core of the preparation, and to take the results of this survey as constituting the unalterable framework of the Action Plan. It was recognised that additional elements would be included in the Plan, since no questionnaire can cover every single aspect of Parish life, but the principle would be to ensure that nothing in the final Plan was inconsistent with the wishes and opinions of residents as expressed in the survey results. Examples from other parishes served as useful guides when the Steering Group drew up the questionnaire, but comments made on the occasion of the Open Day in November 2002 pointed the way to questions more specific to Arnside itself.
Considering the length of the document and the time required to complete it, the overall level of response to the questionnaire was gratifying, especially for a Parish the size of Arnside. Even when Census figures for Arnside are available, it will not be possible – because of different age-brackets used – to confirm or dispel entirely a concern that disproportionately few of the residents between 25-44 may have included themselves in the returns. However, even if this is the case, it needs to be noted that those in this age category have had other chances – over a longish period of time – to offer their views about Arnside. There must always be worries about how representative the returns from a particular questionnaire are, yet it is difficult to find a more democratic way of allowing all residents to express opinions. If there is a ’silent majority’, it will have the usual occasions to break its silence as the provisions of the Plan are carried out.
After preliminary scrutiny of the survey results, the Steering Group for the Plan called for volunteers to join particular ‘Task Groups’, which would produce suggestions for the Action Plan in the light of answers to the questionnaire. As at other stages in the planning process, the response to this call was quite sufficient to enable the arrangement to go ahead, and in due course Task Groups in the following areas made proposals for actions to be included in the Plan:-
Housing and Building [HB]
Business and Tourism [BT]
Traffic, Parking and Transport [TPT]
Education and Communication [EC]
Environment, Safety and Security [ESS]
The Steering Group itself took on that same role for the area that is now best designated as Facilities and Spaces [FS]. It went on to examine all of the proposals together and draw up a draft Action Plan. This was made available at a public meeting, then revised in the light of both comments made and changes in circumstances right up to the completion of the full Parish Plan.
All of the Task Groups are expected to continue in existence now that the writing of the Plan has been completed, although a better title for them at this stage is ‘Action Groups’. Some individual members of the Task Groups will continue their work, some will drop out; nearly a dozen new individuals came forward at the public meeting in June to join the existing groups. The future activities of the five Action Groups will be an extremely important element in the carrying out of the Parish Plan: in many cases the specific actions included in the Action Plan are designated as the responsibility of these groups.
Since a decision was made to present the Action Plan in a format which links each proposed action to a particular aim, the Action Plan section of the Parish Plan is intended to be a kind of stand-alone, self-explanatory document. It is appropriate, nevertheless, to set it in context; that is, to give an account of some of the thinking behind it and some of the broader considerations that led to the formulation of particular aims and the recommendation of particular actions.
D.2 General
It was never likely that anything very specific would arise out of questions 6, 7 and 8 of the questionnaire relating to ‘The Community of Arnside’, but there was every reason for regarding answers to them as forming general guidance to those drawing up the Plan. Very large numbers of respondents answered this group of questions, and in the ratio of over 5:1 those with an opinion on the matter wish Arnside Parish ‘to stay more or less exactly as it is’. Without solving anything in itself, this result effectively gives the response to anyone disappointed to find that the Parish Plan makes no radical new proposals for Arnside and recommends no really major changes. At the same time, it stands in more obvious need of interpretation than some other results, and the ‘more or less’ opens the door to real, practical measures that will still have discernible effects upon the Parish.
The crucial background to the fact that three-quarters of all respondents wish Arnside to stay more or less the same is that the same proportion regard it as first and foremost a ‘mixture’ of elements. And nearly half would wish it – if it has to change – to become more of a mixture. Moreover, there are indications of what the desired different mix might be. While 14% see the Parish ‘principally’ as a community of retired people, fewer than 5% would wish it to become more so. Yet the equivalent percentages for community of ‘working’ families are 2.5% and 21.5%. This needs to be linked with answers to questions elsewhere, showing more than half of respondents as retired, and fewer than a third as working in some capacity; and those showing that 78% believe losing the primary school would diminish the Parish’s vitality, (even if 61% don’t think it would decrease their desire to remain in Arnside). It would be going too far to suggest that all of this amounts to a general ‘unease’ about the present high proportion of older and retired people in the Parish, but there is unquestionably some recognition that the Parish can certainly not afford to lose any younger people or families with a working member, and that, if anything, it needs rather more. It is much less important to agonise over a general formulation of this kind, however, than simply to recognise that the survey shows significant support for ‘affordable housing’ for younger people, as well as for the creation of more employment opportunities – arguably, the most important constructive results of all.
Another general aspect of the body of information and opinion produced by the survey relates to the ‘Local Government’ section. Aspects of the answers here feed into some of the more specific areas below, but there are two obvious features to responses in this final section of the questionnaire. Firstly, dissatisfaction with the performance of local bodies seems to increase with the scale of their operation. That is to say that whilst there appears, in general, to be much more satisfaction than dissatisfaction with the workings of the Parish Council, the news is less good for both SLDC and Cumbria CC, with around 30% of respondents showing some discontent in each instance. However, what is much more striking – and rather less predictable – is that the proportion of ‘don’t knows’ is significant in every single case here, ranging between a fifth and 44% of all respondents. The implications of this are quite far-reaching, and an attempt is made in the Action Plan to address – through the production of an Arnside Parish Newsletter – the problem of communicating more effectively to residents both the decisions and the deliberations of all three bodies involved. Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that there may be considerable numbers of people in the community whose wish to learn about what is happening at SLDC and Cumbria CC level is not particularly strong – at least until something goes badly wrong!
D.3 Housing and Building [HB]
This is an area where there were major happenings even while the Parish Plan was being prepared. Yet, in the event, a number of factors have come together in a rather remarkable way.
It is true that more than a quarter of respondents to the survey believe that there should be no more house building of any kind in Arnside, but only a tenth or so think that no groups at all in the Parish meet the exceptional needs for ‘affordable homes’. Young local families and/or those working in and around the Parish are seen as having the highest priority in this respect, whilst the needs of elderly people requiring sheltered accommodation are also acknowledged.
Fortunately, this expression of Parish opinion is almost wholly in conformity with the latest broad developments on housing policy. An extremely severe new regional policy on new housing emerged in the spring of 2003: for our particular area, it appears that there will be scarcely any new building at all for some years to come, except for ‘affordable homes’ – even in-filling will mostly not be accepted.
Furthermore, the Arnside-Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which for the first time has been given a formal say in planning matters and will become far more influential in this respect, is almost certain to include in its new Management Plan a similar policy: it is likely to talk of ‘identifiable local needs’ as being the only valid criterion for new housing – meaning first and foremost, though not exclusively, ‘affordable homes’.
In short, for a period of some years to come, all of the relevant bodies – Parish, AONB, South Lakeland District Council, Cumbria County Council – look likely to be in broad harmony over building and housing policy. If the provisions of the Parish Plan concerning building and open spaces are followed – and they make reference not only to affordable homes, but also to the related matter of building for purposes of creating employment opportunities, and to an Open Spaces Strategy – then there should be few major disagreements of principle between the different levels. The main difficulty may consist, rather, in finding appropriate sites and financial arrangements for affordable housing and other desirable types of new building. But there are also issues of information/communication here, since it is vital that the current situation should be clearly understood by all in the Parish, and that the Parish itself should be fully informed of all policies and developments at higher levels. This is essential to ensure that, while minimum time is wasted on hopeless applications, residents are equally aware of the problems involved in actually achieving affordable housing and other building goals, so that no entirely impracticable hopes and expectations are entertained.
The number of respondents wishing to move within the Parish looks quite high, but it is difficult to know what to compare the figure with. There could, and perhaps should, be further analysis of the categories that the would-be movers fall into, since the result is likely to be related to other issues about housing. It is no surprise that the price of accommodation appears to be the dominant factor in this matter, but it is uncertain to what extent this bears upon what we usually mean by the matter of ‘affordable homes’. (What, for example, is the significance of the fact that only 6% of those wishing to move within the Parish cite lack of Housing Association homes as a factor?)
The survey did not pursue the matter of ’second homes’. All that is known is that there were returns from 21 of what are thought to be around 110 (or some 9%) in the Parish. It is known that the current Council Tax rebate of 50% on second homes is likely to be abolished, but one can only speculate on what effect, if any, that will have on the housing market in Arnside, and there is still uncertainty regarding how much of the extra tax raised will come to SLDC, let alone to Arnside. The logic of the present situation is clearly that any such extra money should go towards the cost of providing affordable housing.
D.4 Facilities and Spaces [FS]
From many quarters, it became clear to the Steering Group that – although some may see this as a necessary means of eradicating certain ‘anti-social’ practices, and others as something to be sought after for positive reasons of principle – there is a general wish in the Parish to make better provision for young people in Arnside. Definite support by a clear majority of residents has now been established for the current initiative to create a skateboarding/roller-blading/biking area on the Memorial Playing Field. This initiative is linked with the new, broader Arnside Youth Project to which the Plan gives its full and unreserved backing (more details on this scheme are available on request). Most clearly of all, residents in a ratio of more than 4:1 have said that they would support efforts to find or create premises for a Youth Centre in the Parish. In other words, as with a number of major questions in Arnside, this can now be regarded – thanks to the survey – as a matter of space and finances rather than an issue of principle.
In the time available, the Steering Group has been unable to suggest specific practicable solutions to the whole cluster of issues centrally concerning ‘public’ spaces and the manner of resourcing these (Library, WI/Village Hall, Educational Institute, Parish Council Office, potential Youth Centre, space for police surgeries, etc., etc.). In certain ways, some of these matters are already inter-linked: depending upon the solutions pursued, all of them may or may not become even more closely inter-related.
The whole tangle might have been unpicked, had significant space for use by the community of Arnside become available in the house of Ashmeadow – which is what residents have hoped for and expected for some years. For some time this outcome has seemed unlikely in the extreme, although the very latest developments may open up that possibility once more. The ‘Friends of Ashmeadow’ continue to strive for arrangements whereby the building and grounds will be used in some sense to the permanent benefit of the community of Arnside. They deserve the support of all residents in this aim. In recent years, Ashmeadow woodlands have been opened up to the public by the Trustees, who also deserve full backing by everyone in their aim to maintain this state of affairs in perpetuity. No firm arrangement has yet been entered into for the sale of the house. The hope has long been that any sale would result in a use of the premises that is of some direct benefit to the community and that the sale itself would produce certain sums of money available for community purposes. Major factors like the recent stock-market slump and United Utilities’ wish to use part of the Ashmeadow grounds as part of a new sewerage scheme have complicated matters greatly. Until very recently it seemed that there was little that residents could do directly about the situation.
In the absence of extra community space in Ashmeadow House, the possibilities seem to be: (i) some sort of space-exchanging scheme; (ii) existing space somewhere else in the Parish becoming newly available to residents; (iii) a new community building of some kind. The first would probably solve nothing in itself, since additional space is required, but neither the second or third possibility is out of the question. If, in the case of the second, it were to be a matter of renting extra space (which seems almost certain to be so), part of the solution to financing this could conceivably be, in the long run, the use for this purpose of moneys from the sale of Ashmeadow.
If, on the other hand, the best solution is thought to be a new community building of some description, then in addition to finding a location, the Parish has the problem of raising the money. This is by no means impossible. There is a great deal of money available, in a variety of funds, for community purposes, and a significant number of parishes are already benefiting from the opportunities provided. Askam and Ireleth Parish is reported to have attracted £1 million in connection with a first parish plan, and now to be seeking a further £2 million for a second plan. Although it would not be appropriate to speak of the ‘regeneration’ of Arnside in precisely the same sense, a strong bid could legitimately be based partly on the undoubted need for workspaces and more employment opportunities in the Parish. Survey results clearly indicate support for such a claim: what remains to be seen is whether the required number of competent individuals come forward to invest the considerable time, effort and energy required in such a major project. The Parish Plan can do no more than point the way to this possibility by facilitating the establishment of a Parish Plan Management Group and by recommending that this group enter into partnership with all appropriate bodies (including, of course, the Parish Council), as well as drawing into its work the most skilled and committed members of the community.
A new community building would probably also require the involvement of at least one ‘major player’. One reason to believe that Cumbria County Council might fulfil this role is the fact that Cumbria Library Services are known to be seeking to re-locate Arnside Library. It is more than speculation to suggest that, given the current difficulties of access and its awkward location, a significant number of non-users would begin using a Library with better access and on a level spot. If a suitable location can be found, therefore, one might envisage a new building financed partly by Cumbria County Council and partly from various funds tapped into by a group of energetic Arnside residents, working in conjunction with the Parish Council. Some combination of the following – in addition to the Library – might be housed in such a building:- workspaces, information centre, Parish Council office, youth centre, crèche/facilities for younger children, computer suite/IT centre, heritage displays, space for police surgeries, etc. (Needless to say, if Ashmeadow House were for some reason to become fully available to the Parish, a similar range of facilities might be provided by refurbishment rather than construction from scratch – money for this could be bid for from the same sources.)
A ‘new’ community building, however, would be by no means the end of the story concerning facilities and spaces in the Parish. Both the WI/Village Hall and the Educational Institute – to which such a building would be designed to be complementary – are very heavily used ‘public’ spaces and it is nearly impossible to conceive circumstances in which this would cease to be the case. Modifications, renovations, improvements are planned and in some measure in hand in both cases. And thanks to a legacy, financial resources for certain types of future development are available to the Educational Institute. The Steering Group came to feel, however, that collaboration between the two committees responsible for the buildings could and should be extended, so that, in some sense, Arnside residents might see them together when certain questions of space and location arise. It is no criticism of either institution to say that there is some uncertainty – even confusion – in the Parish concerning the precise status and function of both. Debates about whether, or to what extent, the WI Hall is ‘really’ a ‘village’ hall are intense and this seems to have implications for the response of residents when – as is currently the case – the Hall is in need of resources. The matter of the extent to which the Educational Institute is ‘really’ an ‘educational’ institute may seem to be less important, but it does, in turn, have consequences for the Institute itself, which is currently being obliged to revise its constitution. Following its principle of leaving well alone, the Steering Group has no wish to interfere, let alone to undermine the excellent services that both bodies give to the Parish. But it stands by the point that greater clarity – possibly even greater transparency – regarding roles, as well as more extensive collaboration between the two, could only add to the benefit they bring to the Parish. Nor are they entirely unique in this respect: there are moments when uncertainties concerning the situation/status/role of certain other organisations using important space in the Parish come to the surface. It is always desirable that such uncertainties should be brought into the open and that as many residents as are interested should be given an opportunity to have an input into any discussions.
A final aspect of public spaces and facilities in the Parish is the existence of certain buildings that are unused, scarcely used, and/or to one degree or another dilapidated. With one exception, these are privately owned, so that informal enquiries about any possibilities of Parish use constitute the only proper way forward. Residents are strongly in favour of having such approaches made. Needless to say, if there were to be success of some kind in even just one case, it could open up a whole new dimension to Parish life (for instance, via the creation of an information centre, or a heritage centre), or it might help significantly with the problems outlined above, without closing down other options.
The Cemetery Chapel at the top of Silverdale Road is in Parish Council hands, so that the route to action is much more direct here and the expectations of a speedy outcome much higher. In a ratio of more than 6:1 residents want the Chapel to be brought into suitable additional use for the Parish. Indeed, the first steps in this connection have already been taken: an Open Afternoon has been held in the Chapel (with music and displays), to give residents a chance to see inside and make additional suggestions for the building’s use. Since the Chapel is situated inside the cemetery, there are obvious limits to appropriate uses. Moreover, the building is relatively small and currently lacking in either electricity or running water. It may not be able, therefore, to make any significant contribution to the solution of the space problems mentioned, but it could already be used in imaginative ways on summer afternoons and evenings, thereby adding something quite distinctive to life in Arnside. Moreover, with an established strategy for its development, money could be raised to provide facilities in the Chapel that would extend the range of its possible use.
D.5 Business and Tourism [BT]
The answers to some of the questions in the ‘Employment’ section of the survey produce sets of facts and figures that provide useful background to a number of issues (like transport, in the case of travel-to-work patterns). But in other cases, although the numbers involved may be small – for instance, of those seeking work, or seeking to set up a business – it is arguable that they are disproportionately important, in that this is precisely where action is unmistakably required and might be particularly effective. In this sense, question 24 is of special significance. In a community where more than half of the people seem to be retired, it is very striking that 50% of respondents should support the establishing of craft workshops to create new work-opportunities; and, in a community where at least 40% are over 60, equally striking that 35% should support an Information Technology Centre for the same purpose. The Action Plan makes suggestions for tackling these issues directly, and they may be regarded as a good deal more appropriate to a ‘Vital Villages’ scheme than many others.
To highlight the need for new employment opportunities in the Parish is entirely compatible with also looking at matters from the ‘consumer’s’ viewpoint, and the survey has provided not only information about the shopping patterns of Arnsiders that will be useful in a number of different ways, but also insight into the perceived – and doubtless in most cases very real – needs with regard to shops and other services. The Action Plan has constructive and practical ideas concerning how certain gaps might be filled. It also indicates how the Parish might go as far as it is possible to go in connection with retaining ‘essential’ shops and services – an area where it is extremely difficult to counter brute ‘market forces’.
This is bound up with the open question – already raised – of the extent to which visitors/tourists help to keep alive certain shops and businesses in the village that are of clear benefit to residents. At the moment, it is simply not clear whether the 62% of respondents who believe that they do not benefit at all from local tourism are right. But, in any case, answers to that particular question provide a pointer to attitudes rather than a guide to action, indicating that proposals to increase tourism – which could very easily be devised – might, for many, be vulnerable to the objection that this would bring no advantage to residents. On the other hand, although it should not be ignored that more than a fifth of respondents believe that there should be no tourist literature at all about the Parish, more than two-thirds of respondents (792 out of 1160) think there should be ‘tourist literature encouraging visitors to Arnside’; and, interestingly, more than half of respondents believe that such visitors should be encouraged to stay overnight or longer. There are difficult, delicate and in some ways crucial questions here: anyone who believes that it would have been possible to get to the bottom of them in the time available, let alone arrive at any kind of Parish consensus, is probably underestimating the complexities.
All in all, there is little sign that the present level of tourism in itself is causing great concern in Arnside, some suggestion that it would help if fewer visitors came by car and by coach, and probably a feeling that more of the present number might stay overnight or longer. It is certainly known that some traders are bothered that the numbers of visitors coming for Cross-Bay walks bring little business into the village; and that many believe that the number of parking-places tied up as a result is a significant problem. The Action Plan focuses on the fact that there is a great need for more hard information in this whole area, and that the survey has provided a clearer insight than has previously been available into certain ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ aspects of tourism in Arnside.
In connection with the means of transport to be encouraged/discouraged, as well as in some other respects, there are clear indications that environmental considerations are important to most residents’ view of tourism. The importance of the countryside both inside and around the Parish is unmistakably at least as great to residents as it is to visitors. This (together with the answers to question 33) shows that it is very much in the interests of all in Arnside to uphold and strongly support the function and activities of the AONB Office. This Office, unlike the Parish itself, has influence over the fate of the countryside immediately surrounding Arnside. It can also be expected to lead the debate about the ’sustainability’ of tourism in its Area. This could be crucial to a Parish visited, not, for the most part, for its historical heritage, but primarily for its physical situation and setting.
D.6 Traffic, Parking and Transport [TPT]
If there is one single area in which there appears to be universal agreement on the need for some action, it is that of Traffic, Parking and Transport. Even in relation to means of transport other than private cars – where the Parish has relatively little control, and changes often take some time – there is a definite urgency about devising and carrying out particular measures. For the first time thanks to the survey, some systematic information is now available about residents’ perceived dependency on particular modes of transport. Hence, with 44% of all respondents claiming to be dependent upon railway services, current reports concerning possible closure of passenger services along the Furness Line need to be taken with the utmost seriousness. To the extent that they prove to have any foundation, steps may need to be taken immediately to avoid what could be a disastrous development for Arnside. And although the problems of lack of information/lack of other facilities at the station and of difficult access to station platforms – primarily, but by no means only, for the disabled – have been with us for a long time, they, too, need to be tackled as extremely high priorities.
Also for the first time, the survey gives some indication of what it would take to encourage residents to use bus and train services more (rather than their cars). This will be of assistance as the Parish seeks greater co-ordination and integration of different transport systems, although there are obvious limits to what can be achieved by the Parish alone. Here, as in a number of areas, it is of the utmost importance that Arnside should look for common ground with, and try to make common cause with, surrounding parishes and the AONB Office; and that it should endeavour to work in close co-operation or partnership with outside bodies like FLAG, Carnforth Connect, the Countryside Agency (which has rural transport schemes), etc.
The Action Plan has proposals in all of these areas. But it has no magic – or even simple, direct – solutions to offer. The Parish as a whole, let alone the Parish Council, can do very little that is immediately effective in relation to train and bus services, or station facilities. Representations can, of course, be made, and regularly are, but action always involves contacting other bodies and this sometimes works and often does not. Those respondents to the questionnaire who believe that simple solutions are available failed to convince the Steering Group: they will have further chances to persuade the relevant Action Group and others in the Parish as the Plan is put into effect. More generally, perhaps on these matters in particular there is a strong onus on all Arnside residents to watch developments very closely, to digest all of the information available (which will be more extensive, if the provisions of the Action Plan are carried out), and to be pro-active rather than complaining after the event: it is well known that County Councillors and MPs rarely fail to respond to a decent volume of messages from their constituents on a given matter.
The obviously inter-related issues of traffic-circulation and parking in the Parish are also multi-layered, and a good deal more complex than many in Arnside recognise. How many of the more simplistic ’solutions’ envisaged by some are seriously undermined, for example, by the following facts?
(a) Station Yard is privately owned and it is currently believed that a Compulsory Purchase Order for purposes of creating a car park is not a possibility.
(b) The foreshore area next to the viaduct is not recognised as a car park by SLDC, which some years ago threatened legal action against the Parish Council for attempting to improve the surface.
(c) Station Field is privately owned, so that even ‘biting into’ it for purposes of a lay-by would involve the purchase of land which the owner might or not be willing to sell.
(d) Such matters as double yellow lines, restricted-time parking, payment for on-street parking, residents’ parking permits, etc. are all governed by Traffic Regulation Orders. These can be issued only by Cumbria County Council. Requests for changes to TROs can be rejected, and their implementation can be very greatly delayed. (The substance of the response to a recent, straightforward request by the Parish Council for the extension of current Monday-to-Saturday parking restrictions to Sunday too was that Cumbria CC may or may not be able to do this, eventually, depending upon whether they have the required resources.)
(e) Only some – not all – of the residents currently parking their cars on the road next to their homes have off-road parking available.
The purpose of listing these facts is not to argue that nothing can be done – all of the above issues are in fact addressed in the Action Plan. It is to emphasise, once more, to residents that there are no one-step, non-controversial, instant solutions to these problems. Why would they not already have been adopted, if there were?
On parking specifically, the results from question 55 of the survey do not suggest that there are major problems relating to residents parking their own cars as they move about the Parish, although the ’seasonal’ element stressed might point, eventually, to differential arrangements for parking according to the time of year. Question 56 was an attempt to inject some realism into requests for more off-street parking. Since fewer than half of all respondents are willing to pay for this and nearly a third are not, no initiative of this kind requiring extra expenditure for residents could be justified as part of the Plan. Of course, a certain reading of the answers, as well as common sense, suggests that appropriately-located extra off-street parking without extra cost to residents might be generally supported.
No one disputes that on certain days of the year (involving, for instance, Bank Holidays, particularly good weather, car-boot sales, Cross-Bay walks) the influx of visitors’ cars into Arnside causes major problems. Everything possible should be done to avoid the unacceptable consequences that sometimes result (no access for emergency vehicles, residents unable to drive onto their own property or conduct their regular business). But such cases are exceptional: it is more difficult to know exactly how much inconvenience, if any, is caused to residents by visitors’ cars on a ‘regular’ Saturday or Sunday (or weekdays) in the summer. It is equally difficult to quantify the ill-effects of the fact that the unrestricted parking spaces along the Western Promenade are often occupied for most of the day by a single vehicle (in the case, for example, of Cross-Bay walkers, country walkers, and fishermen). Before solutions can be proposed that reconcile the different interests involved, the Parish needs more information. In these cases, as in the whole area of traffic and parking, a better understanding of the situation should come after at least one survey has been conducted. There is emphasis on this in the Action Plan.
It is arguable that the most urgent problem of all those relating to traffic and parking is one that has become of increasing concern to residents over the past 18 months or so and is now, legitimately, a very considerable worry. That is, the dangers caused by on-street parking on certain specific stretches of road in the Parish (outstandingly, perhaps, particular parts of Silverdale Road, Station Road, Black Dyke Road, Redhills Road). Wherever such parking reduces two lanes to one, there is a potential danger. Where the line of parked vehicles is a long one, this will at least increase the irritation caused and the chance of incidents of one kind or another: where the parking is on or close to a corner or junction, the danger of a major accident is considerably greater. For a number of reasons already touched on, it will not be at all easy to solve these problems. A survey may help us towards an understanding of the extent to which they are bound up with the number of visitors to Arnside, but questions 53 and 54 of the questionnaire were virtually the first formal steps towards addressing a matter that has somehow recently come to overtake in urgency most other parking matters. It is really quite remarkable that 17% of all responding residents (i.e. 202 individuals) know that their on-street parking makes things more difficult for other road-users. When one remembers that questionnaire-returns cover only rather more than half of the Arnside population, the figure is almost difficult to believe. But at the same time the severity of this problem is undeniable: it is undoubtedly the very worst aspect of Arnside’s current parking problems. It is so serious that it could, in due course, cause many people in the Parish to re-consider any objections they have to a one-way system. The scope for other solutions is limited by various factors, although on an ad hoc, place-by-place basis it might be possible to bring about crucial improvements. A rather surprisingly small proportion of respondents answered a question about other road safety measures (question 66), but the Action Plan’s proposal to identify ‘black spots’ in the Parish may eventually result in 20mph speed-limit zones, more parking restrictions and speed bumps all being recommended at different points.
D.7 Education and Communication [EC]
Survey questions in this area produced answers that have allowed the Steering Group to make very specific and practical proposals in a number of cases (after-school clubs, holiday play-scheme, types of adult classes, etc.). Sometimes solutions are in the hands of residents themselves and sometimes it is a matter of approaching, or lobbying, other bodies.
Computer and Internet use stands at higher levels than might have been expected in Arnside, and the suggestions in the Action Plan regarding an IT Centre, Broadband, and an ‘Adopt a Computer Novice’ scheme aim to build on this for the future.
More generally, a whole series of measures are recommended that are designed to improve different aspects of the problem of information/communication in the Parish, from better notice-boards to a regular Newsletter. In the last case, it is particularly important that the various groups with a stake in this (one or two Action Groups, the Parish Council, etc.) should be brought together to pool ideas and resources, and to avoid duplication. The suggestion is one that bears in an especially significant way on the low level of awareness of the deliberations of local bodies mentioned above, as well as on the Parish Council’s commitment to attain ‘Quality Parish’ status. But the implications that any new publication(s) might have for the continued existence of the estimable Broadsheet need to be borne in mind.
D.8 Environment, Safety and Security [ESS]
In this area, the survey once more provided some results that can be used piecemeal over a considerable period of time. It is not clear how much relevance answers on Parish recycling facilities will have in the light of new refuse collection arrangements that are due to be brought in, but the numbers produced by question 39 – on environmental services – have direct and fairly straightforward implications for utilities and other service-providers beyond the Parish. In a number of cases, the figures should be drawn to the attention of the bodies concerned. This would not necessarily be for critical purposes in every instance, but where the Parish Council and others should press for improvements, the Action Plan sometimes makes particular suggestions about how these might be brought about, thereby yielding an opportunity to be specific rather than general, and to improve the chances of a positive outcome. In other cases (for example questions 35 and 36), answers will certainly provide detailed guidance for the Parish Council as it establishes its own priorities. Within the broader picture, issues like litter, dog-fouling, uneven pavements, and street-cleaning can seem trivial, yet it has emerged time and again (in Arnside, in other parishes, and in other countries) that such factors matter a great deal to residents, who regard them as important, on a day-by-day basis, to their quality of life. It is appropriate that a Parish Plan should address such questions as well as wider, weightier ones.
There appear to be no major concerns about health and welfare provision in the Parish, but the overwhelming support for all of the ‘rescue’ services, which are seen as absolutely essential, must be taken as a call to residents themselves to do their best to ensure that these are able to continue functioning with their present speed and efficiency.
The question in the survey about paying for a local policeman has been overtaken by events, but the Action Plan suggests that the promises made in conjunction with a huge rise in the police element in Council Tax for 2003-04 should be very carefully monitored over a four-year period. The results from question 62 (83% of respondents feel safe and secure in Arnside) and question 67 (70% believe that a greater/more frequent police presence in the Parish is required) should not be regarded as contradictory: among other things, they probably point strongly to concerns about vandalism in the Parish, which is a particularly live issue at the moment. The Action Plan suggests that particular initiatives by the Police (like the current COPS) should be strong supported; it also has other recommendations concerning a continuing search for practical ways in which the Police might improve their service to the local community.
