Banstead West Division – Nork Appraisal

In response to Government legislation, Reigate and Banstead Borough and Surrey County Councils are developing a Community Plan aimed at improving their services and residents’ well being as a whole. To determine the key issues for their Wards in preparation for this Plan, the Nork and Tattenhams Councillors decided to carry out a thorough appraisal. Using software developed by the Countryside and Community Research Unit, Cheltenham, a Steering Group formed from volunteer residents of all ages produced a questionnaire adapted to be specific to each Ward. After scrutiny from both Borough and County officers, the questionnaires were printed by the Borough Council and then delivered in early 2003 by volunteer residents to every household. Completed responses were collected some 10 days later, the last ones being received in May. Data inputting took on average 12 minutes per questionnaire, and each written comment was recorded. The outcomes so far as Nork Ward is concerned follow in this report.

HOUSEHOLD SECTION

Question Number 1. Completed responses were received from 1014 households representing 2437 residents, a response of 35%

Question Number 2. The number of people in these households was as follows, a much older population when compared to that of the Borough as a whole as given in the 2001 Census.

Question Number 3. Of these households 967 (95.4%) were owner occupied, 33 (3.3%) were Housing Association rented and 12 (1.2%) were rented privately. Owner occupation being significantly higher than the Borough -the corresponding being 79%, 12% and 9% respectively).

Question Number 4. The households were made up of the following dwellings, with a significantly higher proportion living in detached houses compared to the Borough as a whole (30.2%).

Question Number 5. Asked whether the household was in a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme, there was great uncertainty even among near neighbours. 497 (49.0%) thought they were in a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme, while 153 (15.1%) said No and 355 (35.0%) did not know.

Question Number 6. Energy saving features are widespread in Nork with 88% of dwellings having a lagged hot water tank, loft insulation and double-glazing. 30% have cavity wall insulation and 42% use energy saving light bulbs. Only 10% have a water saving device.

Question Number 7. The number of children under 16 attending some form of education was:

Question Number 8. The number of people over 16 attending other forms of education was:

Question Number 9. The reasons given why children under 16 are unable to take part in after school activities were as follows:

Question Number 10. 1981 vehicles were kept by the 1014 households, that is 1.95 per household or on average each person over 17 yrs has a vehicle. This is markedly above the Borough average of only 87% households owning a car. The actual breakdown was as follows:

PERSONAL SECTION

This section was intended to be completed by each member of the household over the age of 11yrs however it was clear that in many households it was completed by a single member.

Question Number 11. The number of respondents was 2074 of which 997 (48.1%) were male and 1077 (51.9) were female.

Question Number 12. The age group of respondents was:

Question Number 13. Respondents had lived in their current home for:

Question Number 14. Some 60% of respondents moved to Nork because it was an attractive area, 9% because of employment in the area and 13% because of family connections and 22% coming with the family.

Question Number 15. This question "What is most important to you about Nork" amassed some 1500 comments, almost entirely favourable. In summary respondents considered Nork was a semi rural, quiet, pleasant residential area with attractive housing, tree-lined roads with grass verges, secluded large gardens giving privacy and a feeling of spaciousness. It had easy access to the countryside, the Downs, good shopping towns such as Epsom, Sutton, Kingston and Croydon, the M25, the coast, airports, and ports and easy commuting to London. The hilly landscape provided good views of London and the Thames Valley. Neighbours were friendly, and there was a community spirit. It was not over-crowded and had a good balance of age groups. There were good local shops and restaurants, and good local schools particularly primary. Nork Park was a most important asset. The crime rate was low. The area was generally well maintained and tidy. On the debit side there was concern at the threat of infill housing developments and mindless youth vandalism.

Question Number 16. As might be expected from the degree of car ownership the car is the overwhelming means of transport. The major means of transport given as?

Question Number 17. Only 5.5% admitted usually keeping their vehicle on the road. The usual places of parking were given as:

Question Number 18. The usage of the vehicle was described as:

Question Number 19. In the main trains were only used occasionally for social/ leisure:

Question Number 20. Improvements were sought in the train service with regard to?

Some 5% commented that improvements were required to Banstead Station. Residents considered it dirty and unpleasant. Vandalism had to be tackled and graffiti removed promptly. There was a fear for their personal safety particularly at night. The presence of staff would help and they could catch ticket dodgers and ensure the ticket machine worked. Earlier morning and later night trains would be welcome. A Sunday service was required. Similar though less comments were made about Epsom Downs Station.

Question Number 21. At most 20% used the bus and then only occasionally. However for some 5% as confirmed in Question 16 above it was their main form of transport.

Question Number 22. Improvements in the bus service were sought by 895 respondents with regard to:

Some 7% commented on the importance of the 166 bus for transport from Nork to Epsom and Epsom General Hospital. Greater reliability, increased frequency and later running buses would encourage more passengers. There was also some 6% seeking a direct bus to Sutton and Cheam. There was criticism of the publicity given to timetables.

Question Number 23. There were only 40 responses rating the Dial-a Ride bus service. Some 60% were content. However there was criticism of the Zone fare system making a trip from Nork to Epsom expensive. It was also clear that some respondents were unaware of this service.

Question Number 24. Only 14% considered a school bus would benefit them for their children to go to school outside Nork.

Question Number 25. Some 69% used the local taxi service monthly or occasionally while 27.7% never used them.

Question Number 26. Only 5.1% were unhappy with the local taxi service while 64.7% considered the service adequate. 30.2% had no opinion.

Question Number 27. 1030 (58.3%) considered there were major danger spots on the roads in Nork. The most frequently mentioned comments were:

Nork Way

• 12% were concerned at the situation at Nork Way shops, with parking both sides of the road (many all day), on pavements, cars linked to the car dealer being parked on the hatched white lines, and cars parked down to Warren Road.

• 9% raised the junction with Fir Tree Road, a mini-roundabout and pedestrian crossing being suggested.

• Its junction with Green Curve and the parking on both sides of this road was mentioned by 4%.

• 4% were concerned with its junctions with Partridge Mead, Nork Rise, Roundwood Way and Warren Road due to poor sight lines caused by parked cars.

• 2% raised the junction with Reigate Road and the problem of parked cars at that end of Nork Way.

• 5% mentioned the danger of speeding in Nork Way and the poor street lighting. The need for centre white lines was mentioned

• Finally 3% were concerned at the parked cars on the brow of the hill by the Nork Community Association and the danger for mothers with children, prams, dogs etc trying to cross the road to visit the Childrens’ Playground and Nork Park.

Drift Bridge 8% considered this a dangerous junction due to Reigate Road becoming single lane. It was suggested that the outer lanes should have filters for right turn only. This would deter red light jumping and aggressive overtaking at the junction to get into the single lane.

Fir Tree Road (Banstead) 4% were concerned with its junction with Banstead Road. 2% thought that the junction with the A217 could be made safer by improved street lighting, sign-posting and road markings particularly those for right turns. 2% considered the junction with High Beeches was dangerous, made worse by the speed of traffic near the bend. 1% were concerned at the Warren Road exit.

Fir Tree Road (Epsom Downs) 2% were concerned at the speed of traffic in this road and argued that it should be subject to a 30 mph limit.

Burgh Wood 4% commented that the junction with the A217 was dangerous, particularly when trying to turn south across the slip road and the northbound lanes with speeding traffic. 2% mentioned the danger of trying to cross the A217 from Burgh Wood on foot to the footpath to The Horseshoe.

Reigate Road 2% considered the junction with Rose Bushes was a danger spot. Similarly 2% mentioned Yew Tree Bottom Road junction and a further 2% the junction with Claremount Gardens

Yew Tree Bottom Road 2% were concerned at the speed of traffic in this road and the junction with Garlichill Road. Buckles Gap roundabout was mentioned by 1% as being dangerous for walkers.

Warren Mead Schools The roads near these two schools were mentioned by 3% as being dangerous because of the indiscriminate parking by mothers and the lack of pedestrian crossings.

The Drive 1% mentioned the exit into the A217 made worse by parked cars and Beacon School children

Question Number 28. The responses to suggested speed control measures were as follows with no clear cut solution:

Question Number 29. Residents were generally very critical of the state of our roads etc, the pavements in particular:

• The road surfaces of Claremount Gardens, Hillside and part of Nork Way were specifically mentioned as was the collapse of High Beeches by Beecholme.

• Most pavements were mentioned but those of Ruden Way, Green Curve, The Drive, Nork Way and Warren Road received most mention. The pavement of Reigate Road east side has little surface at all

• The street lighting in Nork Way, Fir Tree Road, Ruden Way, The Drive, Buckles Way, Tumblewood Road, and Warren Road was noted as poor

Question Number 30. The respondents gave support to the following. Again the state of pavements calling for most improvement:

Some respondents suggested other improvements and these have been recorded. Some are included under other questions, none of the others however received significant general support.

Question Number 31. Only 463 respondents answered whether Nork needed more education facilities:

Question Number 32. Less than 8% of the respondents consider Nork can accommodate more housing:

Question Number 33. Undoubtedly because of the strong opposition to more housing in Nork, only 213 respondents answered what type of homes are needed in Nork:

Question Number 34. Only 58 (3.6% of 1601) respondents indicated that adaptations were required to their homes to make them suitable for their health needs.

Question Number 35. Only 421 (22.8% of 1844) respondents considered mobile telephone pole masts and their associated equipment cabinets were acceptable in Nork. Well over 50% considered these masts to be unsightly, a health hazard and devalued nearby property

Question Number 36. Asked whether they would prefer a number of single mobile telephone pole masts (10-15m high) for each company or fewer much taller lattice masts (20-25m) for use by a number of companies, many residents refused to answer and simply wrote NONE. Of the remaining 1218 respondents opinion was almost equally divided

Question Number 37. Only some 46% were satisfied with the way the planning system is implemented in Nork:

The most common criticism was that it was too easy for developers to gain approval against the wishes of neighbours and that not enough neighbours received notification of an application.

Question Number 38. 51% considered that insufficient publicity is given to planning applications that affect Nork:

Question Number 39. Respondents were somewhat reluctant to give their views on the standard of our emergency services in Nork but undoubtedly they were most critical of the Police with only 28.8% considering them good or reasonable and 27.1% rating them as poor:

Question Number 40. In an area accepted as low crime it must be a matter of concern that 41.3% considered there were areas in Nork where they felt unsafe:

Question Number 41. The predominant fear was from groups of youths particularly at night, the areas considered to be unsafe were:

Drift Bridge 13 (1.7%) The Drive 12 (1.6%)

Question Number 42. 1742 respondents considered the following measures were needed:

Question Number 43. Very few of the 1524 respondents had used the medical services but 85.35% were content with their Doctor:

Question Number 44. 1589 respondents commented on the following improvements that could be made to the environment of Nork Park, the most popular being keeping hedges short and tidy, install a path suitable for prams and wheelchairs, provide more seats, plant bluebells in the woods and plant more trees:

Question Number 45. 1555 respondents commented on the need for additional sports facilities in Nork:

Given what some might think this a surprising result, a further analysis was examined using only respondents between age 11 and 44, ie those likely to be most interested, but again in this group only changing facilities in Nork Park and a Leisure Centre in Tattenhams Recreation Ground gained the majority approval. From some comments made it appears there is concern these facilities might encourage too many young troublemakers

Question Number 46. Asked why respondents did not take part in sports activities, most did not want to but almost 20% cited poor publicity:

Question Number 47. 178 respondents indicated they would attend new clubs/activities if they were provided. Some 7% suggested an aerobic/fitness/trim trekker club while others suggested activities already provided by the Nork Community Association.

Question Number 48. 1752 respondents indicated their awareness of what was on offer at the following places. Apart from the Banstead Leisure Centre, there was clearly a need for greater publicity:

Question Number 49. 1755 respondents indicated where they get information about events taking place in Nork. 78.5% state the free newspapers but they are primarily concerned with Epsom and Sutton with little or nothing on the Borough. Under Other, some 5% mentioned the Nork Quarterly,. Two respondents listed the Borough Help Shop:

Question Number 50. Asked whether they receive the Borough News (The Borough Council’s newspaper) only 41% of the 1830 respondents knew they did:

Question Number 51. Only 36.4% of the 1818 respondents considered the Borough Council publicised its decisions and activities adequately

Question Number 52. 1815 respondents gave their opinion on the following public services. The 37.2% rating for car parking is clearly a reflection of the problem of parking in the Nork Way shopping parade area. The demand for improved pavement and road maintenance was repeated throughout the responses to the questionnaire. Respondents were clearly most content with the waste disposal service:

Question Number 53. The high opinion of the waste disposal service was supported by the 1800 respondents comments on their use of the following. It was noted that invariably Nork residents use the Epsom and Ewell rubbish tip:

Question Number 54. Asked whether they were satisfied with the way their Council Tax was spent, 1872 respondents replied:

Question Number 55. Asked whether they would be prepared to pay a slightly higher Council Tax to meet some of the needs of Nork, 62.9% said ‘No’. Some comments indicated they would be willing but only if it was spent on Nork.

Question Number 56. 1586 respondents commented where money should come from to implement suggestions raised by this questionnaire. Nearly 5% suggested the money could be found by better use of existing funds, and 2% suggested Government Taxes.

Question Number 57. 1736 respondents commented on whether they felt their elected representatives in local government are sufficiently aware of local concerns and feelings.

Question Number 58. The last question asked what should be done to help protect and enhance the local environment of Nork and drew 1537 comments. The most frequently mentioned were:

188(12.2%) sought the prevention of more building in Nork, the retention of open space and the preservation of the character of the area, the privacy of large gardens, and noted the lack of the required infrastructure to support increased housing density

140(9.1%) wanted a visible police presence, particularly at night to counter vandalism and disorder where groups of youth gather. 23(1.4%) were specifically worried about vandalism caused by youngsters. 61((3.9%) sought action to crack down on youth disorder, the provision of facilities and activities to relieve their boredom through more constructive opportunities. 37(2.4%) wanted prompt action to remove graffiti and severe penalties against perpetrators.

112(7.2%) concerned the Nork Way shopping parade, the need to provide parking for shoppers by stopping long term parking preferably by the provision of a car park at Banstead Station, the dangerous parking on both sides of Green Curve and the problems of parking around Eastgate, the unfortunate planning decision to allow shops to be replaced by offices leading to increased long term parking by more employees, and the danger of vehicles parking on the pavements.

76(4.9%) were concerned with uneven pavements, difficult for prams and wheelchairs, and more dangerous at night due to the poor street lighting. They sought prompt improvement and maintenance. Similarly 69(4.4%) wanted more prompt and more effective road maintenance. 18(1.1%) wanted streets to be kept cleaner. 28(1.8%) suggested stronger action to reduce litter

36(2.3%) wanted parking on grass verges stopped and their maintenance improved. 38(2.4%) sought improvements in street lighting

23(1.4%) sought an overall improvement in public transport. 37(2.4%) specifically concerned the bus service including the need to retain the 166 bus, a service to Sutton and a general improvement in frequency and reliability. 43 (2.7%) related to Banstead Station itself, the need for a car park, and to make it cleaner, safe and more useable.

37(2.4%) contained suggestions to improve community spirit through events and activities and the development of community pride.

60(3.9%) made suggestions with regard to Nork Park, the need to protect it with a warden or park ranger, plant more trees, conserve its natural look, the provision of more sports facilities and better maintenance of the existing childrens’ playground, tennis courts etc

25(1.6%) would like to see greater opportunity for recycling particularly plastics.

23(1.4%) considered local shops should be encouraged, with permission for offices, restaurants and takeaways being resisted.

36(2.3%) wanted more effective control of speeding, the A217 (Mad Mile), Nork Way and Fir Tree Road being mentioned in particular. Humps as traffic calming measures were not supported

39(2.5%) suggested more trees should be planted particularly replacements when roadside trees have to be removed.

Comments concerning problems in specific roads have been noted. Other comments concerning the removal of abandoned cars, the nuisance of bonfires, CCTV as a deterrent/evidence gatherer, dogs mess, rubbish left by dustmen, overgrown footpaths, mobile phone masts, planning issues, parking near schools, travellers and the need for improved train services were all mentioned but each numbered less than 1%.

Conclusion

The Nork Appraisal was intended to determine the concerns and aspirations of Nork residents. This report can only summarise the responses and make them available to the appropriate agencies for inclusion in the Community Plan. Notwithstanding that, every effort will now be made to alleviate the problems raised and to work towards achieving the aspirations mentioned. Some will be easily solved, some will take time and some may be not achievable. We can but try.

Brian Stead, Councillor, Nork Ward 14^th June 2003