A   ACCESS TO SERVICES

1   Accessibility of Key Services

As a predominantly rural county access to services and facilities are critical issues for Suffolk. Whilst there is a wide range of services available within the county, location of such facilities and transport availability can lead to problems of access. People within the main towns of Suffolk tend to have fewer problems with accessibility, so almost all the research available in this area is in relation to access to services and facilities in the rural parishes of the county.

Survey of Rural Parishes

Suffolk ACRE, a charity concerned with the regeneration of rural areas within the county, was commissioned by the Rural Development Commission (now Countryside Agency) to take part in a national research project called the Survey of Rural Parishes (1997), which covered 9,677 rural parishes (population of under 1000) within England. There are 422 rural parishes in Suffolk, and the survey received a very high response rate of 83% (around 350 replies). The questionnaires were sent out to Parish Clerks, who provided details of the facilities and services within their locality. This survey was also undertaken in 1991 and 1994 and wherever possible the questions asked in 1997 were kept the same as those asked previously in order to establish trends occurring throughout the decade in both the country and individual counties. For further information please contact Suffolk ACRE, or refer to page 9 of the State of Suffolk Profile 2000, available on http://www.suffolkcc.gov.uk.

The Rural Services Survey 2000 incorporates extensive information from postcoded data, enabling the Countryside Agency to give almost 100% accurate data for particular services. A rural parish questionnaire was also used, as in earlier years. This enabled recording of data on services where information is not available on a postcoded basis yet, and to provide a cross-check of the postcoded data. A total of 6102 survey forms were returned from a potential total of 9677 rural parishes (a response rate of 67%) which helped to establish broad trends since the last survey.

Details that are currently available are on the Countryside Agency’s website at http://www.countryside.gov.uk/ruralservices. The Countryside Agency will be providing further analysis of the survey in the future. As from March 2002, analysis at a county level will be available.

The main findings of the survey present a complex picture of service provision in rural areas across England and Wales.

They need to be interpreted carefully, but the main national findings are:

• overall, the decline of many, but not all, essential local services in rural areas seems to be slowing down;

• rural post offices have continued to close (546 between 1997 and 2000); a rural post office is now more than a 2km walk for 1 in every 15 rural households (6.5%);

• nearly six in every ten of rural households have a bank or building society within 2km of their homes, but cashpoints (Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs)) and other ways of obtaining cash are helping to plug the gap (e.g. supermarket ‘cashback’ arrangments and post offices). Even so, for businesses the closure of rural bank branches can impose significant difficulties;

• most rural settlements have neither a general store ¹ (78%) nor a small village shop ² (72%), but 80% of rural households live within 4 km of a supermarket ³;

• 86.8% of rural households live within 4 km of a petrol-filling station (most petrol stations have shops selling convenience items such as papers and confectionery, and many stock a wider range of goods, including basic foods);

• rural pubs can make an important contribution to community vibrancy, but 53% of all rural settlements do not have a public house;

• public and community transport provision is increasing in many rural areas. There has been an increase of 4-5% overall between 1997 and 2000, but the smaller settlements have benefited least so far,29% still have no public transport facility;

• 91.6% of rural households live within 2 km of a primary school; 1% (60,000 households) live further than 4 km away, but it is not known how many of these households contain primary school age children.

• 21.5% of rural households live more than 4 km from a secondary school;

• more village halls and meeting places are available (in 2000 there was one in 85% of parishes compared to 72% in 1997), possibly due to the impact of grant programmes.

• Over 50% of all parishes have at least one youth club;

• the availability of crime prevention advice and linkage to a community safety partnership seems dependent on parish size – the smaller the parish, the less likely it is to have access. 61% of parishes have no community safety partnership, but 77% have access to crime prevention advice;

• 85.8% of rural households live within 4 km of a doctor’s surgery and 91.5% of households in rural areas live within 12 km of a hospital;

• jobcentres are concentrated in larger market towns ⁴ and urban centres with 27.6% of rural households over 8 km from one;

• 58.5% of rural households live more than 12 km of a Benefits Agency office, but there is considerable regional variation.

In using these findings three factors should be borne in mind:

• mobility is critical. Although improving, a proportion of people in rural communities remain disadvantaged through the lack of access to transport;

• access to services can be ‘virtual’, it does not always have to be physical. For example, it may not matter that a Benefits Agency office is some distance away if people can access the service through local IT;

• having a service is not an indication of the quality of that service.

In the East of England:

• Very few rural households live more than 8km from a bank or building society, particularly in the East of England, the North West, South East and South West, where less than 5% of households are more than 8km from a service outlet.

• Using the distance bandings, the East of England has the lowest accessibility to supermarkets (28.7% more than 4 km), the North West has best accessibility with only 12.3% of households living further than 4 km and more than 70% of rural households within 2 km of a supermarket.

• The East of England shows the highest proportion of households (more than 25%) living between 4-8 km of a secondary school.

• The location of jobcentres may also reflect long term patterns of unemployment. Both the South East and Eastern regions have relatively large proportions of rural households in the higher distance bands, in contrast with the pattern of provision of many other services in these regions.

• The regions where geographical availability are poorest (East of England and the South West) are those that have relatively few large urban centres, and thus, fewer Benefits Agency offices within an easy distance of the rural population.

With regard to Suffolk, local information is currently available from the website at ward level for the following services

• Cash Point information (from LINK plc, 2000)

• Banks and Building Society information (from Retail Locations Database, CACI Ltd, 2001)

• Post Office information (from Post Office Address File, 2001)

• Primary and secondary school information (from DfEE, 2000)

• Doctor’s surgery information (from Binley’s (Beechwood House Publishing), 2001)

The figures show the numbers of household delivery points for the services from 0-20km in bands of 2km e.g. 0-2km, 2-4km etc. (The distance banding is ‘as the crow’ files.)

1.1   Numbers of households at distances from services

In this way the following table picks out those wards with services farther than indicated for each service: e.g. Walsham-le-willows has 60% of its households 12-14 kms from a cashpoint.

N.B. % < 5 have not been included due to the small numbers; where boxes are left blank/shaded this is because the services are nearer than distance stated. Analysis of household accessibility - aggregated delivery point data for 1998 standard ID2000 wards i.e. comparable with deprivation indices; household delivery points in each ward.

Source: Rural Services Survey 2000, Countryside Agency

The Countryside Agency’s Vital Villages Programme:

Launched in April 2001 the Vital Villages initiative provides a range of grants to help rural communities identify and meet their own priorities for revitalising their villages. It aims to address the local service provision and transport needs of the wider community including the socially excluded in ways that suit local circumstances.

Community groups and businesses can bid under three different grants to support this programme - Community Service Grants (CSG), Parish & Town Plan Grant (PTP), Parish Transport Grant (PTG). Larger schemes may be able to find funding through our Rural Transport Fund. The local contact is Neville Jeffcote, based in Suffolk ACRE, 01473 242518.

A full application pack containing more detailed information on each of the grants available can be obtained from the Vital Villages Call Centre on 0870 3330170 and further guidance on the Vital Villages programme can be found on www.countryside.gov.uk/vitalvillages.

Suffolk InfoLink and Libraries

Suffolk InfoLink URL http://infolink.suffolkcc.gov.uk is a database of people, places and events. There are contact names for all kinds of organisations in Suffolk, from public services to voluntary groups. Over 5,000 special interest clubs alone are listed.

Local libraries also contain a notable amount of information on local organisations and community groups. Libraries are a high profile public service, and many people use their various facilities. Table 1.2 shows the number of visitors to the larger libraries in Suffolk.

1.2 Usage of the larger Libraries in Suffolk

*This figure includes all libraries in Suffolk not just the ones listed.
Source: Libraries & Heritage, SCC. 2001

2   Travel

With a lack of local amenities the ability to travel to facilities becomes a pressing issue. The availability of a daily bus service is considered by the Rural Development Commission to be a key service, and one which has declined in the last decade. The number of rural parishes in Suffolk not having a daily bus service had increased from 76% - 80% 1994 -1997.

Travel Diaries

In order to analyse the transport attitudes and habits of Suffolk residents a travel survey was designed. This took the form of travel diaries whereby individuals kept details of their travel activities over 7 days. (Autumn 1999 - Spring 2000).

They were asked to record:

• Where they went to and from

• How they travelled

• How far they went

• At what time they travelled

• The purpose of the trip.

In autumn 1999, 2500 travel diaries were commissioned by the Environment and Transport Department of Suffolk County Council aiming to survey people from 20 places throughout the county. They were chosen from electoral rolls in order to get a cross-section of urban, small town and rural residents. The Diaries were collected in two stages – 1500 before Christmas 1999 and 1000 in March and April 2000. The information included here is from 2500 diaries, which consisted of 64,159 trips for analysis from a wide age range.

2.1 Mode of transport

Source: Travel Diaries, E&T SCC.

It is unsurprising that in a rural county like Suffolk, such a large proportion of journeys are made by car. As so few of the journeys made were by bus or coach, and even less by train, it suggests that the public transport available is being under utilised.

2.2 Reasons for travel

Source: Travel Diaries, E&T SCC.

Pie chart 2.2 shows a greater number of trips were made for shopping, recreation and leisure than were made for getting to work. Although the most frequent trip was for getting home, the fact that only a third of trips was for this purpose, indicates how frequently people combine journeys. E.g. they may go to work, then shopping and then return home.

• Trips are spread very evenly throughout the week, although predictably there are noticeably fewer trips made on a Sunday than any other day.

• 40% of trips were made during the ‘daytime’ period (09:30-16:30), while only 13% were made during the evening or at night (18:30-07:30).

• 55% of journeys were under a mile.

• 31% of all trips made by car were journeys less than a mile, whereas 82% of all journeys by foot were less than a mile.

• Bus use for trips for both work and shopping is small, only 4% and 5% respectively for trips of all distances.

People keeping the travel diaries were also questioned about their opinions of public transport, and asked what would encourage them to use either public transport or walk/ cycle.

Public Transport - the most important factors that would encourage people to use public transport were:

• More frequent services

• More reliable services

• Cheaper fares

• Better integration of bus and train timetables.

The respondents did not believe that increasing town centre parking charges would encourage them to use public transport.

Walking and Cycling - the most important factors that would encourage people to walk or cycle were:

• Dedicated cycle ways

• Secure cycle parking

• Better pavements

• Improved street lighting

35% of respondents did not consider changing/ shower facilities at work to be important and 39% felt that town cycle stations would not encourage them to cycle.

Signed safe walk/ cycle routes, reduced air pollution and more road crossings were also mentioned as encouraging factors.

In response to possible changes in transport provision:

• 66% feel it is acceptable to transfer more road space to cyclists. 68% feel it is acceptable to transfer more road space to pedestrians, and 50% consider it acceptable to transfer more road space to buses.

• 59% feel that it is totally unacceptable to charge employees to park at work.

• 66% feel that providing park and ride schemes in large towns would be totally acceptable.

‘Getting About’ Report

Mid Suffolk District Council with assistance from the University of East Anglia made a more detailed analysis of the problems of access to facilities within their jurisdiction. They looked closely at bus routes, and the road network working out how long it would take to get to six main facilities. Parishes were then ranked on the level of accessibility for the services.

The six services considered were:

• Doctors Surgeries

• State Schools

• Market Centre

• Post Offices

• Sports Centres and Swimming Pools

• Supermarkets

The facilities included were not restricted to those located within the Mid Suffolk boundary. Sites outside the district in larger population centres were included if it appeared that they would be the closest suitable facility for any Mid Suffolk resident. It must be mentioned that in many parishes there is an uneven distribution of both population, and service provision. This leads to considerable internal contrasts in accessibility within parishes. Taking these problems into account, the report allowed those parishes with problems of access to key services to be pinpointed, and for this information to be taken into consideration when developing the public transport system, and local facility provision.

Source: ‘Getting About: Transport Provision and Accessibility to Facilities in Mid Suffolk’. Sept 1999. Mid Suffolk District Council.

CONTACTS - ACCESS TO SERVICES

1   A general store is a shop in a town or village selling a range of household items including food e.g. Spar, Co-op, Happy Shopper.

2   Small village shops are defined as the sole shop selling mainly foodstuffs and are located within the village they serve.

3   Supermarkets are defined as national chain-owned shops selling a range of goods including foodstuffs, e.g. Tesco, Sainsburys, Lidl, Waitrose.

4   Market Towns are defined as centres of population in rural areas within a population of between 2,000 and 20,000 head of population.