|
When I accepted the chairmanship of the Parish Plan Steering Committee I had little idea of what was involved or what the result would be. What I did know was that I thought our task was important and that the residents should have an opportunity to formally record their needs and wants. I believe this plan is a comprehensive reference work that governmental, voluntary and commercial organisations involved in our future should take into account when making their plans. In particular I look forward to the Parish Council adopting the action plan as its blueprint for the challenging times ahead. Many of the findings have been shared with the local strategic partnership and again we are encouraged by their willingness to address the community's views and concerns. Most of the credit for the plan goes to my fellow committee members to whom I would like to express my gratitude. In particular I would like to acknowledge the committee's secretary Graham Steel without whom we would not be where we are today, and for writing this report; Jeremy Peters for producing this report and editing www.myshotley.com; Kevin Smith for his work on the questionnaire and software; and to Val and Roy Simpkin who sourced much important local information. Also, thanks are due to all the volunteer deliverers and data entry clerks and the many people who gave up their time to complete questionnaires, attend meetings, share their views and research issues. Last but not least thanks to the sponsors, Shotley Parish Council, Suffolk Acre and the Countryside Agency. We could say that responsibility for the Parish Plan now passes from the Steering Committee to the Parish Council; however, this would only be partially true. The real responsibility passes to you the people, organisations and businesses of Shotley. The Parish Council I am sure can and will facilitate, support and give direction but as we say on the website "You can make things happen here" Phill Radley, Chairman, Shotley Parish Plan Steering Committee |
||
|
The Parish Plan for Shotley has been a long time in the making and this is shown by the depth and quality of the consultations undertaken voluntarily by the Steering Committee. The exercise has been as thorough as the Steering Committee could make it and we are confident that the recommendations accurately reflect the views of the community and that the information in the body of the report can confidently guide policy makers and service providers on our needs and aspirations.
Graham Steel, Secretary, Shotley Parish Plan Steering Committee |
||
|
3.1 A Parish Plan is a thorough exercise to raise interest in the village about how we can plan and build for the future. A Parish Plan should reflect the views of all sections of the community; it should identify features and local characteristics that people value; identify local problems and opportunities; spell out how residents would like the community to develop in the future, and prepare a plan of action to achieve this vision
3.2 Shotley Parish Council first considered producing a Parish Plan sometime in 2000, however, it was not until late 2003 that the decision to go ahead was finally taken and endorsed by a Parish Meeting. Chief amongst the reasons for the decision was that the village was facing a number of planning issues which had the potential for changing many aspects of village life:
These new developments were in addition to a near doubling of the population in the mid to late 1980s and a more recent significant increase in the early 1990s when over 100 ex Ministry of Defence houses were sold.
3.3 The Council were also aware that no detailed assessment of the needs of the community had been made for some time and that if the case for resources to meet the needs of the existing community was to be effectively made, then sound research would need to be undertaken. This would also allow for a more reasoned approach to the implications of pursuing Quality Parish Status.
3.4 The village of Erwarton looks to Shotley to provide many essential services and membership of local voluntary organisations and clubs are shared with Shotley. The Erwarton Parish Meeting agreed to participate in the Parish Plan process. 3.5 At the Parish Meeting referred to above, a number of residents were nominated to serve as the Steering Committee. Following a briefing and skills audit in March 2004, the following agreed to continue in the role:
Dr David Hall as the Chairperson of the Erwarton Parish meeting was a co-opted member and a further co-option, Carol Nightingale, was made in June 2005. We are also indebted to the invaluable assistance of Brigitte Gualde who initially designed the web site.
3.6 It is important to reiterate that whilst Shotley Parish Council partially funded the Parish Plan and acted as banker for the Steering Committee the process was entirely independent of them and at no time did they seek to influence the methodology or findings. The independence of the Steering Committee is enshrined in the Constitution adopted in April 2004 - Appendix B.
3.7 Funding for the plan was provided in roughly equal proportions by the Countryside Agency, Shotley Parish Council and the voluntary contributions in kind of the Steering Committee and other volunteers. Due to Government restrictions imposed on the Countryside Agency a number of items had to be removed from the budget and the Committee are indebted to the Parish Council for making additional funds available for meeting rooms, the web site and specific consultation events. The accounts for these monies are to be found elsewhere on this website
3.8 The process and methodology used by the Steering Committee is described in section 5 of this report. A summary of the consultation exercises is to be found in section 6. |
||
|
4.1 Location The Parish of Shotley is situated at the end of the Shotley Peninsula, approximately 10 miles south east of Ipswich, the county town of Suffolk.
The Shotley peninsula is bounded by the estuaries of the Rivers Stour and Orwell, which form one of the most notable natural harbours – Harwich Harbour - on the East Coast of England. The harbour is the home of the internationally renown ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. Although the Shotley Peninsula is not included on the average tourist's trail through Suffolk, it is an area of outstanding beauty and is a magnet to naturalists, walkers, bird-watchers, horse-riders, cyclists and yachtsmen alike.
Shotley Parish, at the extreme easterly end of the Shotley Peninsula, covers approximately 60sq.km and is made up of 3 distinct settlements; a hamlet centered on the Church, Shotley Gate, principally family housing in 1960s and 1980s developments, and Shotley Street which contains a large element of social housing. Of particular note is the historical shore-based Royal Navy training facility, HMS Ganges, which currently lies derelict. Napoleonic era buildings and fortifications have recently been discovered. |
||
|
|
|
|
| Figure 1 location of Shotley | Figure 2 Shotley in relation to Ipswich and neighbouring villages. [Crown Copyright] | |
 |
||
| Figure 3. Detailed map of Shotley and Erwarton Parishes [Crown Copyright] | ||
|
STATISTICS FOR SHOTLEY AND ERWARTON PARISHES (source: ONS, 2001 Census, Crown Copyright) |
||
|
4.2 Population and age distribution The total number of households in the two Parishes, as recorded in the 2001 Census, was 987 with a total population of 2,373 (1,173 male, 1,200 female). The age distribution is shown below in figure 1; 31% of the population is aged 24 or younger, and 15% aged 65 and older. The mean age of the population is nearly 38. |
||
 |
||
| Figure 4: Parish Population Age Distribution | ||
|
4.3 Employment |
||
|
Of the 1,701 people aged between 16 and 74, 1,227 (72%) declared themselves as 'economically active'. Figure 5 shows a detailed breakdown of this economically active group (male and female). |
||
 |
||
| Figure 5: Economically active population | ||
|
45% of the total (16-74) population are in full-time employment, 14% in part-time employment, 10% self-employed, 2% full-time students, and 2% are unemployed. Within the group classified as unemployed, 12 are aged between 16 and 24, 13 are aged 50 and over, 3 have never worked, and 10 are long term unemployed.
Figure 6 shows a detailed breakdown of the 'economically inactive' population (a total of 512). The largest fraction of this population are those classified as Retired (14% of the total 16-74 population), with the second largest section classified as 'looking after home/family' |
||
 |
||
| Figure 6: Economically inactive population | ||
| 4.4 Hours worked by male and female residents | ||
| A total of 1,197 (646 male and 551 female) of the population between the ages of 16 and 74 were in some form of employment (both part and full-time). Figure 7 below shows the breakdown of the hours worked by male and female residents. 90.4% of men are in full-time employment compared with 53.7% for women. | ||
 |
||
| Figure 7: Hours worked by male (red) and female (green) residents (aged 16-74) | ||
| Also of note, is that there is little local (Shotley based) employment. Self employment, commuting to work distances and hours worked are all higher than the County average. | ||
|
4.5 Cars per household |
||
| A single narrow B road (B1456) traverses the length of the peninsula to serve the Shotley community. The road connects Shotley to Ipswich and beyond (via the A14). The volume of traffic along this road is very important, not just for the residents of Shotley and Erwarton but also for the wider peninsula population, especially at Chelmondiston, Woolverstone and Freston. There is little local (Shotley) employment and so the road is vital for commuting to work as well as reaching other necessary services and facilities. For Shotley, the breakdown of the number of cars (and vans) per household is shown below in figure 8. The vast majority of households (90%) have at least one car; with 44% of the households having at least 2 cars. On average, there are 1.4 cars / household. | ||
 |
||
| Figure 8: Number of cars per household | ||
| The above Shotley & Erwarton data (Source 2001 Census. Crown Copyright) can be downloaded here (in Excel format). If data from the Census is re-used, copyright and source must be acknowledged prominently by the words “Source 2001 Census. Crown Copyright”. | ||
|
5.1 The research, consultation and production of the Parish Plan was carried out by the Steering Committee (SC), whose formation and composition is described in Section 3. The SC met formally on many occasions and had a number of informal meetings. All meetings were advertised and open to the general public.
5.2 Monthly reports were made to Shotley Parish Council and all materials were made available through the web site. Less frequent reports were made to District and County Councillors, the Babergh Crime and Disorder Reduction Panel and the Babergh East Local Strategic Partnership. Annette Grey of Suffolk ACRE was also kept appraised of progress.
5.3 Topics for investigation were determined by the SC from ideas generated at the first public meeting, local knowledge and information from previous research. Key stakeholders were consulted and their observations informed the final decision. For example Babergh's Housing Department advised on questions relating to determining housing need and their recent research in the area resulted in a more focused set of questions being agreed.
5.4 The Steering Committee was keen to employ as wide a range of investigation methods as time and resources would allow:
5.5 A summary of the consultations, other than the household and youth questionnaires, are provided in Appendix A and throughout the web site
5.6 Copies of the two questionnaires can be viewed here.
5.7 The Household and Youth questionnaires were produced and analysed using Village Appraisal for Windows (University of Gloucestershire). |
||
| This is a summary of the results from the Household and Young Peoples Questionnaire | ||
| 6.1 Turnout: A total of 944 household questionnaires were distributed of which 577, 61%, were returned. The 2001 Census identified 982 houses in the two parishes. The deficit is represented by empty properties and properties at which there was no responses during the survey period (Spring 2005). A total of 1181 individuals completed the personal section of the questionnaire representing 49.7% of the population recorded in the 2001 census. An almost equal number of males and females were represented reflecting accurately the known gender balance of the villages. | ||
Table 1
|
Age Group |
Number (% of total questionnaires) |
2001 Census |
|
11-15 |
83 (7%) |
376 (15.8%)* |
|
16-17 |
31 (2.6%) |
209 (8.8%)** |
|
18-24 |
67 (5.7%) |
|
|
25-44 |
332 (28.2%) |
743 (31.3%) |
|
45-59 |
324 (27.5%) |
531 (22.3%)*** |
|
60-64 |
92 (7.8%) |
|
|
65-74 |
150 (12.7%) |
217 (9.1%) |
|
75-84 |
76 (6.4%) |
145 (6.1%)**** |
|
85+ |
24 (2%) |
|
* Aged 5-15
** Aged 16 -24
*** Aged 45-64
**** Aged 74+
|
People over the age of 45 are over represented and young people under represented in the sample.
Eleven per cent of the sample described themselves as having a disability.
6.2 Location: The questionnaire identified the location of households and the returns indicate a strong correlation with the known distribution of the population: |
Table 2
|
Area |
No of quest's returned |
% of total number of questionnaires ret'd |
|
Outlying |
33 |
6% |
|
Shotley Street |
159 |
28% |
|
Shotley Gate |
341 |
59% |
|
The remaining 43 (7.4%) responses were from Erwarton which are analysed and reported upon in a separate report.
6.3 Housing Need: Thirty eight households, 6.6%, indicated that one or more people were in need of alternative accommodation. Twenty one independent children and twelve complete households were wishing to move from their current homes. There is a perceived lack of 'social' housing in the area with 37% wishing to see more homes for young people, 22% small family homes, 18% for single people and 12% for people with disabilities. However 35% would like to see no further house building.
6.4 Cars: The population is heavily car dependent. A total of 970 roadworthy motor vehicles were kept, 1.7 vehicles per household (County average 1.25 phh) and for 85% a car or van was their principle means of transport. However, 20.5% of respondents did not have day time access to a motor vehicle and 44% said that they experience transport difficulties. Five hundred and thirteen bicycles, just less than one per household, were used at least once a week. Less than 2% use a bicycle as their principle means of transport.
6.5 Public Transport: Opinions about public transport were mixed. The bus and Buzabout are the principle means of transport for 11.5% of respondents and up to 29% expressed 'No Opinion' in response to the opinion questions on public transport, probably reflecting low usage. The services scored highest in respect of the routes; 36% believing them to be 'good' and lowest for cost; 21% believing them to be expensive. Overall people who use the services see the services as being 'Reasonable.' There was little support expressed for a car share scheme with 65 to 70% of respondents saying that they would never participate.
6.6 Quality of Life: The majority of the population can be said to be new to the area with 57% having lived here for less than 15 years although there is a significant proportion; 8%, resident for more than 51 years. The love of village/country life and the availability of housing were the two most popular reasons for choosing to live in the area. Twenty three per cent of people believe that the quality of life has got worse compared to 10years ago with 36% believing it to be the same and 10% believing it to be better, 12% feel unsafe in parts of the neighbourhood. |
| 6.7 Local Health Services: It is anticipated that our GP Practice needs to move to new larger premises to enable the facility to offer a wider range of services. Respondents were asked How far you would be prepared to travel to this facility? |
Table 3
|
|
Gate |
Street |
Outlying |
Erwarton |
all |
|
Under 1 mile |
148 (23%) |
151 (52%) |
13 (20.3%) |
6 (8.2%) |
318 (29%) |
|
1 to 5 miles |
459 (71%) |
114 (39%) |
42 (65.6%) |
61 (83.6%) |
678 (63%) |
|
More than 5 miles |
37 (5.7%) |
22 (7.7%) |
9 (14.1%) |
6 (8.2%) |
74 (6.9%) |
|
Only 5 people with disability said that they often had difficulty getting to the doctor and over all 11% said they often or occasionally had difficulty in getting to the surgery.
6.8 Quality of Health Care: Respondents were asked to rate the medical and social services currently provided locally and which were accessed by respondents in the previous year:
Table 4 |
|
Service |
Good |
Reasonable |
Poor |
No Opinion |
|
GP |
779 (83%) |
135 (14%) |
20 (2%) |
3 (0%) |
|
District Nurse |
199 84%) |
28 (12%) |
2 (1%) |
8 (3%) |
|
Health Visitor |
79 (71%) |
14 (12%) |
4 (3%) |
15 (13%) |
|
Home Help |
10 (33%) |
3 (9%) |
3 (9%) |
13 (43%) |
|
Maternity Care |
49 (70%) |
8 (11%) |
1 (2%) |
12 (16%) |
|
Chiropodist |
41 (56%) |
11 (15%) |
11 (15%) |
10 (14%) |
|
Loan of medical equipment |
45 (66%) |
9 (16%) |
6 (9%) |
8 (12%) |
|
Meals on wheels |
12 (50%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (4%) |
11 (49%) |
|
Counselling services |
15 (34%) |
1 (2%) |
11 (33%) |
7 (21%) |
|
Physiotherapy |
29 (50%) |
9 (16%) |
5 (9%) |
15 (26%) |
| Respondents were asked if they had difficulty in getting to medical services currently provided outside of the area: |