Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire ... · Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan...
103
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results 1 1. RESPONSE RATES Overall 258 valid survey responses were received 3 were discarded as they were duplicates Rate of 37% based on 698 surveys distributed Distribution by Settlement 1 Your village Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Thurlestone 193 74.8 76.3 76.3 Buckland 27 10.5 10.7 87.0 Bantham 17 6.6 6.7 93.7 Outlying Rural Areas 16 6.2 6.3 100.0 Total 253 98.1 100.0 Missing 9 5 1.9 Total 258 100.0 Note: Percentages are proportion of total responses, not response rates Response rates are as follows: Thurlestone 193 / 525 households = 37% Buckland 27 / 71 = 38% Bantham 17 / 57 = 30% Outlying areas 16 / 45 = 36% 5 did not answer question, nor was there enough info in the rest of their responses to work out their location.
Transcript of Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire ... · Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan...
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire
Summary of Results
1
1. RESPONSE RATES
Overall 258 valid survey responses were received
3 were discarded as they were duplicates
Rate of 37% based on 698 surveys distributed
Distribution by Settlement
1 Your village
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Thurlestone 193 74.8 76.3 76.3
Buckland 27 10.5 10.7 87.0
Bantham 17 6.6 6.7 93.7
Outlying Rural Areas 16 6.2 6.3 100.0
Total 253 98.1 100.0 Missing 9 5 1.9 Total 258 100.0
Note: Percentages are proportion of total responses, not response rates Response rates are as follows: Thurlestone 193 / 525 households = 37% Buckland 27 / 71 = 38% Bantham 17 / 57 = 30% Outlying areas 16 / 45 = 36% 5 did not answer question, nor was there enough info in the rest of their responses to work out their location.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
2
2. SAMPLE INFORMATION
As this survey was of households rather than individuals, some sample info cannot be determined. Note: The percentages shown here (which are rounded to the nearest whole number) are the percentages of respondents, not the percentage of the total population. So, for example, it is not valid to conclude that 7% of residents rent their homes, only that 7% of the respondents to the survey own their own homes. Where results are particularly relevant or revealing, additional info is included to determine how much can be generalised for the whole community based on the results from respondents.
3a Do you own your home?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I own my home 215 83.3 92.7 92.7
I rent my home 17 6.6 7.3 100.0
Total 232 89.9 100.0 Missing 9 26 10.1 Total 258 100.0
3b Is this your principal residence?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid My principal residence 89 34.5 58.2 58.2
Not my principal residence 64 24.8 41.8 100.0
Total 153 59.3 100.0 Missing 9 105 40.7 Total 258 100.0
Household composition
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Adults with children 38 14.7 15.2 15.2
Adults without children 71 27.5 28.4 43.6
Pensioners 141 54.7 56.4 100.0
Total 250 96.9 100.0 Missing System 8 3.1 Total 258 100.0
Note: This is representative of the household composition of Thurlestone Parish when compared with the demographics from the 2011 census at NeighbourhoodStatistics.gov.uk , which gives:
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
3
Adults with children 13% Adults without children 30% Pensioners 57% Therefore it is valid to break the data down by household type and any relevant results are noted below.
Gender
Descriptive Statistics N Sum
5a Males 219 290
5b Females 234 322
Valid N (listwise) 202
The sum column gives the total number of people in the households represented in the survey (although they did not each complete a survey)
Where do adults over 17 work?
Descriptive Statistics N Sum
6a Work in the parish 30 30
6b Work outside the parish 67 110
6c Work from home 34 43
Valid N (listwise) 5 Use the sum column to show how many people in total work in /outside the parish. Note: There may be some duplication here as some people will have counted themselves as working from home and working in the parish.
What do other over 17s do?
Descriptive Statistics N Sum
6d Student 21 40
6e Looking after home/family 26 25
6f Long term sick/disabled 10 7
6g Seeking work 6 3
6h Retired 181 304
Valid N (listwise) 3 Use the sum column to show how many people do other things. Again there may be some duplication here as people might indicate they are both students and seeking work, for example.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
4
3. OUR HOMES
Where is housing needed?
7a Need housing in Thurlestone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Need a lot more 14 5.4 5.8 5.8
Need a few more 122 47.3 50.2 56.0
About right 80 31.0 32.9 88.9
Too many already 27 10.5 11.1 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
Key result: 56% of respondents thought that more housing is needed in Thurlestone. Note: This result was stronger from non-residents than residents of Thurlestone. (Nimbyism? Or is Thurlestone a more appropriate place for growth?)
7b Need housing in Buckland
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Need a lot more 6 2.3 4.6 4.6
Need a few more 58 22.5 44.6 49.2
About right 59 22.9 45.4 94.6
Too many already 7 2.7 5.4 100.0
Total 130 50.4 100.0 Missing 9 128 49.6 Total 258 100.0
Key result: 49% of respondents thought that more housing is needed in Buckland.
7c Need housing in Bantham
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Need a lot more 7 2.7 5.5 5.5
Need a few more 56 21.7 43.8 49.2
About right 54 20.9 42.2 91.4
Too many already 11 4.3 8.6 100.0
Total 128 49.6 100.0 Missing 9 130 50.4 Total 258 100.0
Key result: 49% of respondents thought that more housing is needed in Bantham. This result was more pronounced among Bantham respondents themselves, 53% of whom thought a few more houses are needed, suggesting a particular local need.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
5
What type of housing is needed?
8a Need for flats
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 85 32.9 48.6 48.6
Not needed very much 38 14.7 21.7 70.3
Needed 44 17.1 25.1 95.4
Very much needed 8 3.1 4.6 100.0
Total 175 67.8 100.0 Missing 9 83 32.2 Total 258 100.0
8b Need for bungalows
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 56 21.7 32.4 32.4
Not needed very much 39 15.1 22.5 54.9
Needed 62 24.0 35.8 90.8
Very much needed 16 6.2 9.2 100.0
Total 173 67.1 100.0 Missing 9 85 32.9 Total 258 100.0
8c Need for houses
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 47 18.2 26.7 26.7
Not needed very much 32 12.4 18.2 44.9
Needed 76 29.5 43.2 88.1
Very much needed 21 8.1 11.9 100.0
Total 176 68.2 100.0 Missing 9 82 31.8 Total 258 100.0
30% of respondents thought there was a need for flats, 45% a need for bungalows and 55% a need for houses. The strongest response across the parish was for houses.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
6
What size housing is needed?
8d Need for 1 bed
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 64 24.8 43.5 43.5
Not needed very much 32 12.4 21.8 65.3
Needed 38 14.7 25.9 91.2
Very much needed 13 5.0 8.8 100.0
Total 147 57.0 100.0 Missing 9 111 43.0 Total 258 100.0
8e Need for 2-3 beds
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 35 13.6 17.3 17.3
Not needed very much 19 7.4 9.4 26.7
Needed 116 45.0 57.4 84.2
Very much needed 32 12.4 15.8 100.0
Total 202 78.3 100.0 Missing 9 56 21.7 Total 258 100.0
8f Need for 4 beds
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 74 28.7 54.8 54.8
Not needed very much 36 14.0 26.7 81.5
Needed 16 6.2 11.9 93.3
Very much needed 9 3.5 6.7 100.0
Total 135 52.3 100.0 Missing 9 123 47.7 Total 258 100.0
Overall: 35% support for 1 bed houses 73% support for 2-3 bed houses 19% support for 4 bed houses When compared with housing types: support is for 1-3 bed flats, 2-3 bed bungalows and houses of all sizes, but particularly 2-3 beds.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
7
What tenure of housing is needed?
8g Need owned homes
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 37 14.3 20.2 20.2
Not needed very much 21 8.1 11.5 31.7
Needed 92 35.7 50.3 82.0
Very much needed 33 12.8 18.0 100.0
Total 183 70.9 100.0 Missing 9 75 29.1 Total 258 100.0
8h Need rented homes
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 45 17.4 26.5 26.5
Not needed very much 26 10.1 15.3 41.8
Needed 74 28.7 43.5 85.3
Very much needed 25 9.7 14.7 100.0
Total 170 65.9 100.0 Missing 9 88 34.1 Total 258 100.0
8i Need self/custom build plots
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 78 30.2 48.4 48.4
Not needed very much 26 10.1 16.1 64.6
Needed 39 15.1 24.2 88.8
Very much needed 18 7.0 11.2 100.0
Total 161 62.4 100.0 Missing 9 97 37.6 Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
8
8j Need social to buy
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 72 27.9 37.7 37.7
Not needed very much 21 8.1 11.0 48.7
Needed 74 28.7 38.7 87.4
Very much needed 24 9.3 12.6 100.0
Total 191 74.0 100.0 Missing 9 67 26.0 Total 258 100.0
8k Need social to rent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not needed 59 22.9 30.9 30.9
Not needed very much 21 8.1 11.0 41.9
Needed 80 31.0 41.9 83.8
Very much needed 31 12.0 16.2 100.0
Total 191 74.0 100.0 Missing 9 67 26.0 Total 258 100.0
Support for housing of all types, including more social housing. There was also strong support among Bantham respondents for self/custom build plots (69%), although overall support across the parish for self/custom build plots was low (35%). Only 28% of Thurlestone respondents supported self/custom build plots.
Differences among household types One respondent raised a particular concern that: “The biggest problem here is there will be polarised opinion which will mean the results may not be truly representative … the families like mine will have the smallest say in the survey because there are less of us to answer questions”. Each of the above results has been statistically tested to identify any significant differences in answering between families and other respondents, and between principal homeowners and second homeowners. The only significant differences are listed below:
Significantly higher support for houses (as opposed to flats or bungalows) among families (Chi squared, p<0.05)
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
9
Significantly greater support for houses of all sizes, but particularly 2-3 bed homes among families (Chi squared, p<0.01)
Significantly higher support for home ownership (rather than rented homes) among families (Chi squared, p<0.05)
Significantly higher support for self build plots among families (Chi squared, p<0.01)
There were no significant differences in responses between principal homeowners and second homeowners.
To summarise this finding: whilst there are some differences between the views of families and other residents, they are typically of the same opinion about housing needs, but feel more strongly about it.
Where should housing be built?
9a One site
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 10 3.9 6.9 6.9
Agree 22 8.5 15.3 22.2
Disagree 49 19.0 34.0 56.3
Strongly disagree 63 24.4 43.8 100.0
Total 144 55.8 100.0 Missing 9 114 44.2 Total 258 100.0
9b A number of smaller sites
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 25 9.7 14.9 14.9
Agree 102 39.5 60.7 75.6
Disagree 18 7.0 10.7 86.3
Strongly disagree 23 8.9 13.7 100.0
Total 168 65.1 100.0 Missing 9 90 34.9 Total 258 100.0
Strong preference for a number of smaller sites (76%) over one large site (22%).
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
10
9c Individual plots
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 18 7.0 12.2 12.2
Agree 83 32.2 56.1 68.2
Disagree 27 10.5 18.2 86.5
Strongly disagree 20 7.8 13.5 100.0
Total 148 57.4 100.0 Missing 9 110 42.6 Total 258 100.0
Some support for individual plots, which tallies with interest in self build above.
9d Infill within existing villages
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 40 15.5 21.6 21.6
Agree 111 43.0 60.0 81.6
Disagree 15 5.8 8.1 89.7
Strongly disagree 19 7.4 10.3 100.0
Total 185 71.7 100.0 Missing 9 73 28.3 Total 258 100.0
83% of respondents support infill within existing villages.
9e Adjoining existing villages
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 12 4.7 7.7 7.7
Agree 47 18.2 30.3 38.1
Disagree 31 12.0 20.0 58.1
Strongly disagree 65 25.2 41.9 100.0
Total 155 60.1 100.0 Missing 9 103 39.9 Total 258 100.0
62% of respondents oppose new housing on land adjoining existing villages.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
11
9f No new housing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 26 10.1 17.7 17.7
Agree 23 8.9 15.6 33.3
Disagree 61 23.6 41.5 74.8
Strongly disagree 37 14.3 25.2 100.0
Total 147 57.0 100.0 Missing 9 111 43.0 Total 258 100.0
33% thought there shouldn’t be any new housing.
10a Convert existing rural/farm buildings
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 35 13.6 14.8 14.8
Agree 161 62.4 68.2 83.1
Disagree 19 7.4 8.1 91.1
Strongly disagree 21 8.1 8.9 100.0
Total 236 91.5 100.0 Missing 9 22 8.5 Total 258 100.0
10b Add to existing clusters of houses outside villages
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 18 7.0 8.2 8.2
Agree 121 46.9 55.3 63.5
Disagree 40 15.5 18.3 81.7
Strongly disagree 40 15.5 18.3 100.0
Total 219 84.9 100.0 Missing 9 39 15.1 Total 258 100.0
In rural areas, there is support for both converting existing buildings (83%) and adding to existing clusters of houses (64%).
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
12
Should settlement boundaries be reviewed?
11 Review settlement boundaries
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 42 16.3 17.4 17.4
Agree 115 44.6 47.5 64.9
Disagree 37 14.3 15.3 80.2
Strongly disagree 48 18.6 19.8 100.0
Total 242 93.8 100.0 Missing 9 16 6.2 Total 258 100.0
65% of respondents are supportive of reviewing settlement boundaries through the neighbourhood plan.
Do you support a policy to control replacement dwellings and extensions?
12 Control development]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 156 60.5 64.2 64.2
Agree 73 28.3 30.0 94.2
Disagree 7 2.7 2.9 97.1
Strongly disagree 7 2.7 2.9 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
Very strong support for a policy to control replacement dwellings and extensions (94%)
Do you support restricting new houses to principal homes (not second homes/holiday lets)?
13 Restrict second homes
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 100 38.8 41.3 41.3
Agree 63 24.4 26.0 67.4
Disagree 42 16.3 17.4 84.7
Strongly disagree 37 14.3 15.3 100.0
Total 242 93.8 100.0 Missing 9 16 6.2 Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
13
Strong overall support for a restriction on all new open market houses to ensure use as principal homes and not as second homes and/or holiday letting (67%) 13 Restrict second homes * 3b Is this your principal residence? Crosstabulation
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total My principal
Not my principal
13 Restrict second homes Strongly Agree
38 6 44
44.7% 10.2% 30.6%
Agree
28 13 41
32.9% 22.0% 28.5%
Disagree
9 23 32
10.6% 39.0% 22.2%
Strongly disagree
10 17 27
11.8% 28.8% 18.8%
Total
85 59 144
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (Unsurprisingly) existing second homeowners are not supportive of this proposal with 68% disagreeing with the proposal.
Do you support the provision of assisted living accommodation?
14 Assisted living
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 64 24.8 26.3 26.3
Agree 152 58.9 62.6 88.9
Disagree 22 8.5 9.1 97.9
Strongly disagree 5 1.9 2.1 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
Very strong support for the provision of assisted living accommodation (89%).
Other comments on Our Homes 56 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 11 were concerned that any new houses must be of suitable architectural style e.g. “It would be good to see new builds blending in with original housing, keeping in sympathy with the surroundings and not dwarfing existing houses near to them”.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
14
8 thought new housing should only be to supply local need, e.g. “Ideally provision should reflect demand … there should certainly be provision for a sustainable resident population”. 6 commented on the benefits brought by second homeowners, e.g. “We should not underestimate the economic benefit derived from the high proportion of retired people and second homes in the parish. This is all year round work as distinct from seasonal tourism employment”. 6 were concerned about traffic/infrastructure if more houses are built, e.g. “More building in the villages would cause further congestion on the roads”. 5 wanted homes with support for older people 4 reported that family homes are needed 3 stated that there were too many second homes 3 did not want any new housing at all The remaining comments covered a range of areas, including a preference for small developments, ensuring that new houses do not impact on views. Opposing points of view were expressed about retaining bungalows or replacing them with houses. There were also numerous specific suggestions, including:
Campaign to encourage people to downsize and free up larger family properties
Building should not be permitted around archaeological/historical sites
Building should be restricted to brownfield sites
Concerns were raised about how to enforce restrictions on housing to principal homes
Note: Comments that were specific to named properties/individuals or potentially libellous were excluded from the analysis.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
15
4. OUR ECONOMY
Need for increased employment opportunities
16 More employment within parish
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 168 65.1 72.1 72.1
No 65 25.2 27.9 100.0
Total 233 90.3 100.0 Missing 9 25 9.7 Total 258 100.0
72% of respondents believed that there should be more employment within the parish.
Business expansion
17a Support hotel expansion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 95 36.8 42.8 42.8
No 127 49.2 57.2 100.0
Total 222 86.0 100.0 Missing 9 36 14.0 Total 258 100.0
17b Support pub expansion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 106 41.1 47.5 47.5
No 117 45.3 52.5 100.0
Total 223 86.4 100.0 Missing 9 35 13.6 Total 258 100.0
17c Support shop expansion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 131 50.8 59.3 59.3
No 90 34.9 40.7 100.0
Total 221 85.7 100.0 Missing 9 37 14.3 Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
16
17d Support café/restaurant expansion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 145 56.2 64.2 64.2
No 81 31.4 35.8 100.0
Total 226 87.6 100.0 Missing 9 32 12.4 Total 258 100.0
17e Support caravan/campsite expansion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 54 20.9 24.8 24.8
No 164 63.6 75.2 100.0
Total 218 84.5 100.0 Missing 9 40 15.5 Total 258 100.0
17f Support B&B expansion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 189 73.3 81.5 81.5
No 43 16.7 18.5 100.0
Total 232 89.9 100.0 Missing 9 26 10.1 Total 258 100.0
There was support for the following business expansion: 82% supported expansion of B&Bs 64% supported expansion of cafes/restaurants 59% supported expansion of shops However, there was opposition to some types of expansion: 75% opposed expansion of caravan/campsites 57% opposed expansion of hotels 53% opposed expansion of pubs
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
17
Other comments on business expansion 36 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 8 stated that no action is needed to support business expansion, e.g. “There are enough [businesses] already” 8 were concerned about the impact on the infrastructure of business expansion, e.g. “Any development needs adequate car parking” and “No to caravan/campsites because of the unsuitable road access”. 5 were in favour of supporting the growth of existing businesses (rather than additional businesses), e.g. “It’s important the local shops make the most of any opportunities they can bring forward”. 5 supported the development of quality businesses (rather than quantity), e.g. “Key thing is small number of quality vendors”. 4 thought that business expansion should only be in line with local labour availability 3 were supportive of expansion but only where it did not undermine the sustainability of the existing businesses 3 were interested in wet weather/activity businesses 2 wanted businesses that extend the season 1 thought that non-tourism businesses should be the priority
New business premises
18a Support new cafes/restaurants
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 124 48.1 54.1 54.1
No 105 40.7 45.9 100.0
Total 229 88.8 100.0 Missing 9 29 11.2
Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
18
18b Support new arts and crafts workshops
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 168 65.1 72.1 72.1
No 65 25.2 27.9 100.0
Total 233 90.3 100.0 Missing 9 25 9.7
Total 258 100.0
18c Support new surf/watersports shop
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 112 43.4 49.6 49.6
No 114 44.2 50.4 100.0
Total 226 87.6 100.0 Missing 9 32 12.4
Total 258 100.0
18d Support new farmshop
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 191 74.0 81.6 81.6
No 43 16.7 18.4 100.0
Total 234 90.7 100.0 Missing 9 24 9.3 Total 258 100.0
18e Support new caravan/campsites
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 49 19.0 22.1 22.1
No 173 67.1 77.9 100.0
Total 222 86.0 100.0 Missing 9 36 14.0
Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
19
There was support for the following new businesses: 82% supported a farmshop 72% supported arts and crafts workshops 54% supported cafes/restaurants However, 78% of respondents opposed new caravan/campsites and support for a surf/watersports shop was evenly balanced (50/50)
Other comments on Our Economy 27 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 2 were in favour of a business hub, e.g. “Small managed business facility” and “A small business unit containing office space where small professional/service business could be located in a wide variety of areas, i.e. building and property, import/export, consultancy type businesses.” 5 were concerned about the impact of new business, e.g. “ More new premises would lead to further traffic congestion and parking” and “The reason people come here is because it is unspoilt” and “The area is too small for expansion without ruining what’s already here”. 3 were in favour of new premises for businesses provided they are appropriate and proportionate in scale and extent to character of the area, e.g. “Businesses which sympathise with preserving the natural beauty of the area”, “Any provision of new needs to be appropriate in scale to the surrounding area, and on the basis of need within the community. Economy and business space must not be able to be used as reason for over development.” and “Would support as long as we are able to have tight planning control on sympathetic design within the villages and to protect our unspoilt beaches from any development except for Bantham which could take a well designed permanent café/restaurant or shop within the car park area.” 3 supported boat building, boat repair and maintenance, and boat storage. Other suggestions for new business premises included: “small, start up units for very small enterprises”, “design/website agencies” and B&Bs. Support for farm shops ranged from concerns about their viability to enthusiastic support, e.g. “A farm shop would be wonderful” and “We would support farm shops but ONLY if they are of high quality and have a co-operative approach and can be shared by ALL farmers” Thoughts on new cafes/restaurants were mixed, from “More ‘Beach Hut’ restaurants would be great – Bantham?” to “Already have ample food outlets in the parish. Any extra would probably cause the existing ones to close down”.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
20
Views on specific business development
19 New business hub
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 41 15.9 17.2 17.2
Agree 95 36.8 39.9 57.1
Disagree 50 19.4 21.0 78.2
Strongly disagree 52 20.2 21.8 100.0
Total 238 92.2 100.0 Missing 9 20 7.8 Total 258 100.0
57% of respondents supported the development of a new business hub
20 New small-scale workshops
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 45 17.4 18.7 18.7
Agree 114 44.2 47.3 66.0
Disagree 39 15.1 16.2 82.2
Strongly disagree 43 16.7 17.8 100.0
Total 241 93.4 100.0 Missing 9 17 6.6 Total 258 100.0
66% of respondents supported the development of new workshops, e.g. for boatbuilding, boat repairs and outboard engine servicing.
21 More storage for business/commercial use
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 24 9.3 10.0 10.0
Agree 97 37.6 40.2 50.2
Disagree 66 25.6 27.4 77.6
Strongly disagree 54 20.9 22.4 100.0
Total 241 93.4 100.0 Missing 9 17 6.6 Total 258 100.0
There was a 50/50 split on whether more storage space was needed for local business or commercial use, e.g. for boats, watersports equipment.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
21
22 Change use of rural buildings to business/commercial
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 37 14.3 14.9 14.9
Agree 154 59.7 61.8 76.7
Disagree 29 11.2 11.6 88.4
Strongly disagree 29 11.2 11.6 100.0
Total 249 96.5 100.0 Missing 9 9 3.5 Total 258 100.0
There was strong support for changing the use of rural/farm buildings to create new opportunities for local business, commercial or storage purposes (77%).
23 Retention of employment use
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 116 45.0 46.8 46.8
Agree 125 48.4 50.4 97.2
Disagree 5 1.9 2.0 99.2
Strongly disagree 2 .8 .8 100.0
Total 248 96.1 100.0 Missing 9 10 3.9 Total 258 100.0
There was almost unanimous support for keeping existing business and commercial premises in uses which support employment (97%)
Other comments on Our Economy 40 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 9 expressed concerns about infrastructure if there is business development in the area, including roads, affordable housing and public transport, e.g. “Need to provide the infrastructure to encourage professional/business people with families, so that they can support the local services and provide employment” and “Sustainable bus transport needs to be improved to support employment”. 8 were clear that the community can’t sustain any additional businesses, e.g. “Any commercial development would affect the economic viability of the village shop and PO” and “If you change the area too much it will be less attractive to tourists, i.e. killing the golden goose”.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
22
7 were in favour of small scale sustainable development, e.g. “As long as it was not like an industrial estate … but smaller scale and sympathetically designed and located”. 4 felt that development should be in other local centres, such as Kingsbridge, rather than rural villages, e.g. “Need a good reason why Kingsbridge/Salcombe/Aveton Gifford not sufficient for these needs”. 3 specifically wanted to avoid any development at the beaches 2 thought development should be in rural areas outside the villages 2 were supportive of developing the marine sector 2 stated that good quality broadband was essential for business development 2 wanted to limit development to small local businesses (as opposed to chains) The remaining comments covered a range of areas, including suggestions for farm shops selling only local produce, arts/crafts shops, and general (not marine) workshops, but there were also concerns about the labour market to sustain additional businesses and the need to ensure any restrictions on development are carefully enforced.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
23
5. OUR WELLBEING
Paths to link villages
25a New footpaths
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 111 43.0 45.7 45.7
Agree 93 36.0 38.3 84.0
Disagree 26 10.1 10.7 94.7
Strongly disagree 13 5.0 5.3 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
There was strong support for new footpaths to link villages (84%).
25b New cycle tracks
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 76 29.5 33.3 33.3
Agree 77 29.8 33.8 67.1
Disagree 39 15.1 17.1 84.2
Strongly disagree 36 14.0 15.8 100.0
Total 228 88.4 100.0 Missing 9 30 11.6 Total 258 100.0
There was also support for new cycle tracks (67%).
Views on Play Areas
26a Number of play areas
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid More than is needed 29 11.2 13.7 13.7
About right 106 41.1 50.2 64.0
Not good enough 76 29.5 36.0 100.0
Total 211 81.8 100.0 Missing 9 47 18.2 Total 258 100.0
Overall, the majority of respondents (64%) felt there were sufficient play areas already.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
24
26b Equipment in play areas
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid More than is needed 25 9.7 13.0 13.0
About right 97 37.6 50.5 63.5
Not good enough 70 27.1 36.5 100.0
Total 192 74.4 100.0 Missing 9 66 25.6 Total 258 100.0
Again the majority of respondents (64%) felt that the equipment in the play areas was adequate. In the case of 26a and 26b, however, results were swayed by the adult households with no children. The adult households with children and over 65s were significantly more likely to find the play areas insufficient in number and inadequately equipped (Chi squared, p<0.1).
Need for additional facilities? 27 Support for additional facilities within parish Of the 85 respondents who thought that the current provision of play areas and youth facilities is inadequate, there was support for the following additional facilities: Facilities % Level grass sports pitch in Thurlestone 55.3
Facilities for teenagers in Thurlestone 51.8
Play area with equipment in Thurlestone 47.4
Woodland/adventure/nature trail in Thurlestone 45.9
Play area with equipment in Bantham 44.7
Play area with equipment in Buckland 43.4
Informal/kickabout area in Thurlestone 42.4
Woodland/adventure/nature trail in Buckland 35.3
Woodland/adventure/nature trail in Bantham 30.6
Informal/kickabout area in Buckland 25.9
Informal/kickabout area in Bantham 22.4
Facilities for teenagers in Bantham 21.2
Facilities for teenagers in in Buckland 20.0
Level grass sports pitch in Bantham 14.1
Level grass sports pitch in Buckland 11.8
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
25
Other comments on additional facilities 23 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 6 felt that the beaches should also be recognised as play facilities, e.g. “Beach is a massive playground!” 4 felt that other youth club or social activities were needed, e.g. “A safe environment for young local people to have a meeting point” and “More youth orientated social activity / possibly dedicated youth club”. 4 wanted skate parks/ramps provided 3 thought that better transport to other facilities was the answer 3 generally stated that more facilities were needed 2 were of a firm view that no more facilities were required The remaining comments included suggestions for community orchards, bike trails, dog free areas and specific play equipment.
Recreational Land Use
28 Change use to open space, sport or recreation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 31 12.0 12.0 12.0
Agree 137 53.1 53.1 65.1
Disagree 42 16.3 16.3 81.4
Strongly disagree 28 10.9 10.9 92.2
9 20 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 258 100.0 100.0 65% of respondents supported the change of use of greenfield/farmland to open space, sport or recreation use.
29 Restrict change of use from open space, sport or recreation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 94 36.4 36.4 36.4
Agree 100 38.8 38.8 75.2
Disagree 20 7.8 7.8 82.9
Strongly disagree 21 8.1 8.1 91.1
9 23 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 258 100.0 100.0 75% of respondents supported a policy to restrict change of use of open space, sport or recreation land and facilities to other uses.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
26
30a Support focal point in Thurlestone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 53 20.5 23.1 23.1
Agree 100 38.8 43.7 66.8
Disagree 54 20.9 23.6 90.4
Strongly disagree 22 8.5 9.6 100.0
Total 229 88.8 100.0 Missing 9 29 11.2 Total 258 100.0
30b Support focal point in Buckland
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 31 12.0 25.6 25.6
Agree 48 18.6 39.7 65.3
Disagree 27 10.5 22.3 87.6
Strongly disagree 15 5.8 12.4 100.0
Total 121 46.9 100.0 Missing 9 137 53.1 Total 258 100.0
30c Support focal point in Bantham
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 33 12.8 26.4 26.4
Agree 49 19.0 39.2 65.6
Disagree 27 10.5 21.6 87.2
Strongly disagree 16 6.2 12.8 100.0
Total 125 48.4 100.0 Missing 9 133 51.6 Total 258 100.0
There was a high level of support (over 65%) for the provision of a focal point in each village.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
27
Other comments on Our Wellbeing 46 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 20 were happy with the current levels of facilities and did not want changes made, e.g. “Thurlestone has a village green and a parish hall which are well used. Bantham has a beautiful beach. How lucky we are!” and “… our parish [is] exquisite and enviable. We feel privileged to be part of this community and feel it is our duty to protect this unusual state of affairs at all costs”. 9 were keen that the existing facilities should be used more, rather than building new facilities, e.g. “Thurlestone has an excellent community hall which perhaps could be more widely used …” 8 felt that providing safe pedestrian access to facilities was more important than new facilities, e.g. “Our children are reaching an age where they walk and cycle by themselves – footpaths and cycle tracks would make this easier”. 6 reiterated the need for facilities in each community 6 emphasised that the beaches should be regarded as valuable facilities 3 would like more cycle tracks 2 believed that traffic calming measures would improve access to existing facilities The remaining comments related to allowing facilities development to occur naturally in line with overall population change.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
28
6. OUR HERITAGE
Assets to be protected Facilities Number % 32f War Memorial in Thurlestone 231 89.5 32a Pump house in Thurlestone 202 78.3 32j Coronation Quay and boathouse in Bantham 193 74.8 32d Cobbled road by church in Thurlestone 184 71.3 32g Water troughs in Thurlestone & West Buckland 183 70.9 32i Bantham streetscape 183 70.9 32b Thurlestone Phonebox 181 70.2 32k Dixon’s Quay and boathouse near Bantham 176 68.2 32h Lime kilns 144 55.8 32e WWII pillbox on Leasfoot beach 134 51.9 32c Bantham Phonebox 127 49.2
Other comments on assets to be protected 34 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 13 thought that Jenkins Quay should be a specifically protected asset, e.g. “Jenkin’s Quay ... is an absolute icon and should not be allowed to change any further”. Note: There was considerable confusion among respondents about whether Jenkins Quay and Dixon’s Quay were the same. 8 wanted to protect Buckland and Thurlestone streetscapes, e.g. “Old cottages and houses in all three villages”. 6 wanted to protect the areas natural assets, such as sand dunes, e.g. “We must ensure protections are enforced and upheld to preserve the natural and unspoilt landscape ... its value is in its undeveloped status”. 3 wanted to protect the church buildings 3 wanted to protect the golf course (and surrounding areas) 2 specifically wanted to protect the Yarmer Estate The remaining comments were varied, and included protecting the abattoir, the well pump at West Buckland, Thurlestone village green and more generally, the views around the parish.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
29
Other comments on Our Heritage 18 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 7 wanted to protect the entire area form development, e.g. “Please keep the parish much the same as it is. It’s what everyone loves to live in and holiday in.” and “The entire area is our heritage and needs [to be] protected and not changed”. 3 wanted protection for the numerous local historical and archaeological sites, e.g. “All of the Iron Age burial sites [should be protected] and the site on which the beacon is lit”. 2 felt that there was no need for any further protection. 2 believed that sympathetic development was appropriate, rather than no development. The remaining comments were varied, and included differentiating between South Milton and Thurlestone on the local signs, protecting the coast path and protecting the entire Avon estuary.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
30
7. OUR ENVIRONMENT
Protecting wildlife sites and habitats
34a Protect wildlife sites
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 186 72.1 75.9 75.9
Agree 56 21.7 22.9 98.8
Disagree 3 1.2 1.2 100.0
Total 245 95.0 100.0 Missing 9 13 5.0 Total 258 100.0
34b Protect habitats
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 184 71.3 75.7 75.7
Agree 56 21.7 23.0 98.8
Disagree 3 1.2 1.2 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
34c Protect hedgerows
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 186 72.1 76.5 76.5
Agree 53 20.5 21.8 98.4
Disagree 4 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
31
34d Protect Devon banks
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 173 67.1 71.8 71.8
Agree 62 24.0 25.7 97.5
Disagree 6 2.3 2.5 100.0
Total 241 93.4 100.0 Missing 9 17 6.6 Total 258 100.0
There was almost unanimous support for protecting all of the above sites and habitats (98 - 99%).
Coastal Protection
35 Protect seascapes, riverscapes and skylines
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 214 82.9 88.1 88.1
Agree 25 9.7 10.3 98.4
Disagree 4 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
36 Schemes to help manage coastal erosion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 149 57.8 61.6 61.6
Agree 83 32.2 34.3 95.9
Disagree 9 3.5 3.7 99.6
Strongly disagree 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 242 93.8 100.0 Missing 9 16 6.2 Total 258 100.0
There was very strong support for protecting seascapes, riverscapes and skylines (98%) and for schemes to help manage coastal erosion (96%)
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
32
Dark Skies
37 Dark skies policy
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 135 52.3 55.3 55.3
Agree 86 33.3 35.2 90.6
Disagree 11 4.3 4.5 95.1
Strongly disagree 12 4.7 4.9 100.0
Total 244 94.6 100.0 Missing 9 14 5.4 Total 258 100.0
There was strong support for a dark skies policy in the neighbourhood plan (91%).
Other comments on Our Environment 36 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 9 wanted to introduce restrictions on lighting in the area, e.g. “One of the beauties of the area is the enjoyment of clear, starlit skies” and “House lights are fine but do not wish to have street lighting added”. 5 wanted to protect the whole landscape, e.g. “This is a very special part of the country and it is imperative that our environment is preserved”.
5 felt that improvements could be made to agricultural practices (including shooting), e.g. “Upgrade the farmer’s management schemes”. 4 expressed concerns about Thurlestone Marsh, e.g. “Thurlestone Marsh has been spoiled” and “Recent earth works to the Marsh are troubling”. 3 wanted to reduce noise pollution 3 felt that access to the natural environment should be improved 2 believed that a combination of education and enforcement should be developed to protect the environment There were numerous further comments, several of which focused on the detrimental effects of general development on the natural environment. There were also various comments questioning the viability of coastal erosion systems and seeking protection for specific sites/species, such as: glow worms, swallows, swifts, barn owls and migratory birds. There were also some concerns about pedestrian safety if light restrictions are introduced. Note: Comments that were specific to named properties/individuals or potentially libellous were excluded from the analysis.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
33
8. OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
Landline, Mobile and Broadband Services
39a Satisfaction with landline at home
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 37 14.3 15.1 15.1
Satisfied 152 58.9 62.0 77.1
Dissatisfied 30 11.6 12.2 89.4
Very dissatisfied 20 7.8 8.2 97.6
I don't have a landline 6 2.3 2.4 100.0
Total 245 95.0 100.0 Missing 9 13 5.0 Total 258 100.0
Overall, 77% of respondents were satisfied with their home landline provision
Of the respondents that either worked from home or within the parish:
39b Satisfaction with landline at work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 2 3.8 10.5 10.5
Satisfied 13 25.0 68.4 78.9
Dissatisfied 2 3.8 10.5 89.5
Very dissatisfied 2 3.8 10.5 100.0
Total 19 36.5 100.0 Missing 9 33 63.5 Total 52 100.0
79% of respondents working within the parish were satisfied with their landline for work.
40a Satisfaction with mobile at home
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 14 5.4 5.8 5.8
Satisfied 44 17.1 18.1 23.9
Dissatisfied 69 26.7 28.4 52.3
Very dissatisfied 110 42.6 45.3 97.5
I don't use a mobile 6 2.3 2.5 100.0
Total 243 94.2 100.0 Missing 9 15 5.8 Total 258 100.0
74% of respondents were dissatisfied with mobile coverage at home.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
34
40b Satisfaction with mobile around parish
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 4 1.6 2.5 2.5
Satisfied 24 9.3 14.8 17.3
Dissatisfied 54 20.9 33.3 50.6
Very dissatisfied 80 31.0 49.4 100.0
Total 162 62.8 100.0 Missing 9 96 37.2 Total 258 100.0
83% of respondents were dissatisfied with mobile coverage around the parish.
41a Satisfaction with broadband at home
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 20 7.8 8.4 8.4
Satisfied 124 48.1 51.9 60.3
Dissatisfied 45 17.4 18.8 79.1
Very dissatisfied 38 14.7 15.9 95.0
I don't use the internet 12 4.7 5.0 100.0
Total 239 92.6 100.0 Missing 9 19 7.4 Total 258 100.0
60% of respondents were satisfied with broadband at home.
Of the people that reported that they either worked from home or within the parish:
41b Satisfaction with broadband at work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very satisfied 1 1.9 3.8 3.8
Satisfied 12 23.1 46.2 50.0
Dissatisfied 6 11.5 23.1 73.1
Very dissatisfied 5 9.6 19.2 92.3
I don't use the internet 2 3.8 7.7 100.0
Total 26 50.0 100.0 Missing 9 26 50.0 Total 52 100.0
Only 50% of respondents satisfied with broadband for work
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
35
42a Support Community Wifi
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 86 33.3 37.9 37.9
Agree 98 38.0 43.2 81.1
Disagree 26 10.1 11.5 92.5
Strongly disagree 17 6.6 7.5 100.0
Total 227 88.0 100.0 Missing 9 31 12.0 Total 258 100.0
81% of respondents supported developing a community Wifi network.
Comments on connectivity 39 respondents added more detailed comments. The main subjects covered are listed below: 11 felt that provision of mobile and broadband was a basic right and was essential, e.g. “Effective and reliable communications are a necessary part of life now … businesses/tourism cannot progress without decent broadband and mobile communications”. 7 felt that any additional equipment must be inconspicuous for them to support it, e.g. “Inconspicuous must mean exactly that and not at all intrusive”. 5 were happy not to have mobile coverage, e.g. “We don’t have mobile reception and we like it that way”. It is of note that none of the respondents giving this response worked in the parish.
4 felt that improvements were unnecessary 4 were concerned to improve mobile coverage around the parish in case of emergencies 3 experienced consistency issues with their connectivity 3 expressed concerns about the health effects of using Wifi 2 were most concerned that any broadband solutions must be affordable
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
36
Parking
43a Car parking issues in summer/holidays
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not a problem 46 17.8 19.1 19.1
An occasional problem 113 43.8 46.9 66.0
A major problem 82 31.8 34.0 100.0
Total 241 93.4 100.0 Missing 9 17 6.6 Total 258 100.0
81% of respondents stated that car parking is a problem in the summer/at holiday time.
43b Car parking issues all year round
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Not a problem 102 39.5 46.4 46.4
An occasional problem 94 36.4 42.7 89.1
A major problem 24 9.3 10.9 100.0
Total 220 85.3 100.0 Missing 9 38 14.7 Total 258 100.0
54% of respondents stated that car parking is a problem all year round.
44a More parking in Thurlestone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single new car park 81 31.4 63.8 63.8
More spaces throughout
village
46 17.8 36.2 100.0
Total 127 49.2 100.0 Missing 9 131 50.8 Total 258 100.0
44b More parking in Buckland
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single new car park 25 9.7 52.1 52.1
More spaces throughout
village
23 8.9 47.9 100.0
Total 48 18.6 100.0 Missing 9 210 81.4 Total 258 100.0
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
37
44c More parking in Bantham
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Single new car park 40 15.5 63.5 63.5
More spaces throughout
village
23 8.9 36.5 100.0
Total 63 24.4 100.0 Missing 9 195 75.6 Total 258 100.0
64% of respondents supported a single new car park in Thurlestone and Bantham, compared to 52% who supported a single new car park in Buckland and 48% of respondents supported more spaces throughout the village.
45 Support traffic flow improvements
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 57 22.1 23.4 23.4
Agree 93 36.0 38.1 61.5
Disagree 47 18.2 19.3 80.7
Strongly disagree 47 18.2 19.3 100.0
Total 244 94.6 100.0 Missing 9 14 5.4 Total 258 100.0
62% of respondents supported improvements to the free flow of traffic in the parish, eg more and wider passing bays.
Night landing site
46 Support night landing site for air ambulance
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 146 56.6 59.6 59.6
Agree 88 34.1 35.9 95.5
Disagree 6 2.3 2.4 98.0
Strongly disagree 5 1.9 2.0 100.0
Total 245 95.0 100.0 Missing 9 13 5.0 Total 258 100.0
There was almost unanimous support for a night landing site in the parish (96%).
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
38
Other comments on Our Infrastructure 42 respondents added more detailed comments. The subjects covered were diverse, and are summarised below: 6 felt that managing parking at school drop off and collection times was a particular issue, e.g. “School run is the only issue” and “It would be good to have a single designated car park for parents bringing their children to and from the school”. 5 did not think that any more parking should be provided 4 were in favour of a one-way system 4 were in favour of larger passing places 4 would like to introduce resident’s parking 4 felt that better pedestrian/cycle routes would help to alleviate traffic issues 4 believed that the narrow lane naturally restrict traffic and should be left that way 4 were concerned that increased traffic is linked to increased housing, with some suggesting that developers should be tasked with improving traffic flow 3 wanted to see more dedicated parking for customers to the local businesses 2 were keen on a lower speed limit There were numerous other suggestions made including using a field for additional summer parking, setting up a Park & Ride scheme, restricting vehicle sizes and introducing better signage to help traffic flow.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
39
9. OUR RESOURCES
Renewable Energy
48 Development of solar panels on farmland
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Definitely appropriate 22 8.5 9.0 9.0
Possibly appropriate 80 31.0 32.7 41.6
Definitely inappropriate 143 55.4 58.4 100.0
Total 245 95.0 100.0 Missing 9 13 5.0 Total 258 100.0
58% of respondents thought solar panels on farmland were definitely inappropriate.
49 Development of solar panels on farm buildings
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Definitely appropriate 62 24.0 25.1 25.1
Possibly appropriate 143 55.4 57.9 83.0
Definitely inappropriate 42 16.3 17.0 100.0
Total 247 95.7 100.0 Missing 9 11 4.3 Total 258 100.0
83% of respondents thought solar panels on farm buildings possibly or definitely appropriate.
50 Development of wind turbines on farmland
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Definitely appropriate 17 6.6 6.9 6.9
Possibly appropriate 69 26.7 28.0 35.0
Definitely inappropriate 160 62.0 65.0 100.0
Total 246 95.3 100.0 Missing 9 12 4.7 Total 258 100.0
65% of respondents thought wind turbines on farmland were definitely inappropriate.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
40
51 Development of small scale wind turbines close to farm buildings
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Definitely appropriate 30 11.6 12.2 12.2
Possibly appropriate 135 52.3 54.9 67.1
Definitely inappropriate 81 31.4 32.9 100.0
Total 246 95.3 100.0 Missing 9 12 4.7 Total 258 100.0
67% of respondents thought small-scale wind turbines close to farm buildings possibly or definitely appropriate.
Community Heating Scheme
52 Development of community heating scheme in Thurlestone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 38 14.7 16.5 16.5
Agree 106 41.1 46.1 62.6
Disagree 48 18.6 20.9 83.5
Strongly disagree 38 14.7 16.5 100.0
Total 230 89.1 100.0 Missing 9 28 10.9 Total 258 100.0
63% of respondents supported developing a community heating scheme in Thurlestone.
Other comments on Our Resources 32 respondents added more detailed comments. The subjects covered are summarised below: 9 expressed concerns about the viability of a community heating scheme, e.g.“May be worth investigating, but feasibility unlikely” and “Wood burner cost a fortune to install and the payback is now c10 years – not sure this is viable for Thurlestone” 7 were concerned about the visual impact of renewable energy equipment, e.g. “Maintaining the quality and beauty of our surroundings must be paramount” and “… an eyesore like a wind turbine”.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
41
6 requested more info about community heating schemes 3 expressed environmental concerns about the use of woodfuel 2 were supportive of small scale solar energy developments 2 were concerned about the noise, particularly of wind turbines There were numerous other suggestions made including using biofuel, restricting traffic (to reduce energy consumption and pollution) and excluding the hotel from the community heating scheme.
Thurlestone Parish Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary of Results Prepared by The DR Company
42
10. OUR VISION
Views on draft Vision
54 Views on draft Vision
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 144 55.8 60.0 60.0
Agree 90 34.9 37.5 97.5
Disagree 3 1.2 1.3 98.8
Strongly disagree 3 1.2 1.3 100.0
Total 240 93.0 100.0 Missing 9 18 7.0 Total 258 100.0
98% of respondents supported the Vision statement
Other comments on Our Vision 38 respondents added more detailed comments, as summarised below: 9 added comments of endorsement and/or congratulations to the team on developing the Vision, e.g. “A good Vision statement” and “Congratulations to all the team members associated with the production of this in depth document”. 8 reiterated the need to minimise development within the parish, e.g. “Areas of outstanding natural beauty should be left alone and not developed on”. 7 made specific suggestions for the plan, as summarised below: “Council houses should go to locals first” “We agree with the controlled increase of housing … this means the access has to be improved”. “We would like to see a controlled expansion of Thurlestone and its amenities over next 15 years. Too much reliance on Hotel and one shop and golf club”. “Thurlestone, Buckland and Bantham not a natural parish grouping and this makes the Plan more difficult to comprehend.” “We should aim to achieve a community with the widest variety of membership.” “Please help to encourage more young/middle aged people with families to come and settle in the village”. 4 made specific wording suggestions, as detailed below: “With the following amendment: In our opinion any development should be limited to existing buildings.” “Change” will be "(for "development")”. “Not sure we need to be "vibrant". Why not "thriving" or "viable".”
3 made the point that the plan needs the support of South Hams District Council in order to be effective.
1
APPENDIX A OUR HOMES: Crosstabulations for Qs 7-9 & 13 by village
7a Need housing in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
7a Need housing in Thurlestone Need a lot more Count 9 3 2 0 14
% within 1 Your village 4.8% 13.0% 13.3% 0.0% 5.8%
Need a few more Count 93 12 7 10 122
% within 1 Your village 49.7% 52.2% 46.7% 66.7% 50.8%
About right Count 66 6 4 2 78
% within 1 Your village 35.3% 26.1% 26.7% 13.3% 32.5%
Too many already Count 19 2 2 3 26
% within 1 Your village 10.2% 8.7% 13.3% 20.0% 10.8%
Total Count 187 23 15 15 240
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2
7b Need housing in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
7b Need housing in Buckland Need a lot more Count 5 0 1 0 6
% within 1 Your village 6.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 4.7%
Need a few more Count 34 12 6 6 58
% within 1 Your village 45.3% 48.0% 42.9% 40.0% 45.0%
About right Count 34 9 7 8 58
% within 1 Your village 45.3% 36.0% 50.0% 53.3% 45.0%
Too many already Count 2 4 0 1 7
% within 1 Your village 2.7% 16.0% 0.0% 6.7% 5.4%
Total Count 75 25 14 15 129
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7c Need housing in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
7c Need housing in Bantham Need a lot more Count 7 0 0 0 7
% within 1 Your village 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.5%
Need a few more Count 33 9 8 6 56
% within 1 Your village 45.2% 39.1% 53.3% 37.5% 44.1%
About right Count 30 9 6 8 53
% within 1 Your village 41.1% 39.1% 40.0% 50.0% 41.7%
Too many already Count 3 5 1 2 11
% within 1 Your village 4.1% 21.7% 6.7% 12.5% 8.7%
Total Count 73 23 15 16 127
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
3
8a Need flats * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8a Need flats Not needed Count 60 12 6 6 84
% within 1 Your village 48.0% 50.0% 50.0% 54.5% 48.8%
Not needed very much Count 28 5 1 3 37
% within 1 Your village 22.4% 20.8% 8.3% 27.3% 21.5%
Needed Count 32 6 4 1 43
% within 1 Your village 25.6% 25.0% 33.3% 9.1% 25.0%
Very much needed Count 5 1 1 1 8
% within 1 Your village 4.0% 4.2% 8.3% 9.1% 4.7%
Total Count 125 24 12 11 172
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8b Need bungalows * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8b Need bungalows Not needed Count 44 5 3 3 55
% within 1 Your village 35.5% 21.7% 21.4% 30.0% 32.2%
Not needed very much Count 26 6 3 3 38
% within 1 Your village 21.0% 26.1% 21.4% 30.0% 22.2%
Needed Count 44 10 5 3 62
% within 1 Your village 35.5% 43.5% 35.7% 30.0% 36.3%
Very much needed Count 10 2 3 1 16
% within 1 Your village 8.1% 8.7% 21.4% 10.0% 9.4%
Total Count 124 23 14 10 171
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4
8c Need houses * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8c Need houses Not needed Count 39 6 0 0 45
% within 1 Your village 30.7% 26.1% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9%
Not needed very much Count 25 2 4 1 32
% within 1 Your village 19.7% 8.7% 33.3% 8.3% 18.4%
Needed Count 50 12 4 10 76
% within 1 Your village 39.4%11 52.2% 33.3% 83.3% 43.7%
Very much needed Count 13 3 4 1 21
% within 1 Your village 10.2% 13.0% 33.3% 8.3% 12.1%
Total Count 127 23 12 12 174
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8d Need 1 beds * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8d Need 1 beds Not needed Count 49 7 6 0 62
% within 1 Your village 48.0% 35.0% 50.0% 0.0% 43.1%
Not needed very much Count 20 5 2 5 32
% within 1 Your village 19.6% 25.0% 16.7% 50.0% 22.2%
Needed Count 26 5 3 3 37
% within 1 Your village 25.5% 25.0% 25.0% 30.0% 25.7%
Very much needed Count 7 3 1 2 13
% within 1 Your village 6.9% 15.0% 8.3% 20.0% 9.0%
Total Count 102 20 12 10 144
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
5
8e Need 2-3 beds * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8e Need 2-3 beds Not needed Count 26 6 1 0 33
% within 1 Your village 17.6% 25.0% 6.7% 0.0% 16.6%
Not needed very much Count 16 1 2 0 19
% within 1 Your village 10.8% 4.2% 13.3% 0.0% 9.5%
Needed Count 88 11 6 10 115
% within 1 Your village 59.5% 45.8% 40.0% 83.3% 57.8%
Very much needed Count 18 6 6 2 32
% within 1 Your village 12.2% 25.0% 40.0% 16.7% 16.1%
Total Count 148 24 15 12 199
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8f Need 4 beds * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8f Need 4 beds Not needed Count 55 10 5 3 73
% within 1 Your village 59.8% 52.6% 45.5% 25.0% 54.5%
Not needed very much Count 21 4 4 7 36
% within 1 Your village 22.8% 21.1% 36.4% 58.3% 26.9%
Needed Count 10 3 1 2 16
% within 1 Your village 10.9% 15.8% 9.1% 16.7% 11.9%
Very much needed Count 6 2 1 0 9
% within 1 Your village 6.5% 10.5% 9.1% 0.0% 6.7%
Total Count 92 19 11 12 134
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
6
8g Need owned homes * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8g Need owned homes Not needed Count 27 6 2 1 36
% within 1 Your village 20.6% 26.1% 15.4% 7.1% 19.9%
Not needed very much Count 17 3 1 0 21
% within 1 Your village 13.0% 13.0% 7.7% 0.0% 11.6%
Needed Count 69 9 4 9 91
% within 1 Your village 52.7% 39.1% 30.8% 64.3% 50.3%
Very much needed Count 18 5 6 4 33
% within 1 Your village 13.7% 21.7% 46.2% 28.6% 18.2%
Total Count 131 23 13 14 181
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8h Need rented homes * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8h Need rented homes Not needed Count 35 6 2 1 44
% within 1 Your village 29.4% 28.6% 14.3% 7.7% 26.3%
Not needed very much Count 21 4 1 0 26
% within 1 Your village 17.6% 19.0% 7.1% 0.0% 15.6%
Needed Count 51 6 6 9 72
% within 1 Your village 42.9% 28.6% 42.9% 69.2% 43.1%
Very much needed Count 12 5 5 3 25
% within 1 Your village 10.1% 23.8% 35.7% 23.1% 15.0%
Total Count 119 21 14 13 167
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7
8i Need build plots * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8i Need build plots Not needed Count 60 9 3 4 76
% within 1 Your village 55.0% 40.9% 23.1% 28.6% 48.1%
Not needed very much Count 19 3 1 3 26
% within 1 Your village 17.4% 13.6% 7.7% 21.4% 16.5%
Needed Count 23 7 3 5 38
% within 1 Your village 21.1% 31.8% 23.1% 35.7% 24.1%
Very much needed Count 7 3 6 2 18
% within 1 Your village 6.4% 13.6% 46.2% 14.3% 11.4%
Total Count 109 22 13 14 158
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8j Need social to buy * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8j Need social to buy Not needed Count 52 7 7 5 71
% within 1 Your village 37.7% 30.4% 50.0% 38.5% 37.8%
Not needed very much Count 17 2 1 0 20
% within 1 Your village 12.3% 8.7% 7.1% 0.0% 10.6%
Needed Count 58 8 3 4 73
% within 1 Your village 42.0% 34.8% 21.4% 30.8% 38.8%
Very much needed Count 11 6 3 4 24
% within 1 Your village 8.0% 26.1% 21.4% 30.8% 12.8%
Total Count 138 23 14 13 188
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8
8k Need social to rent * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
8k Need social to rent Not needed Count 44 7 4 3 58
% within 1 Your village 31.9% 30.4% 28.6% 23.1% 30.9%
Not needed very much Count 17 1 2 0 20
% within 1 Your village 12.3% 4.3% 14.3% 0.0% 10.6%
Needed Count 59 10 4 6 79
% within 1 Your village 42.8% 43.5% 28.6% 46.2% 42.0%
Very much needed Count 18 5 4 4 31
% within 1 Your village 13.0% 21.7% 28.6% 30.8% 16.5%
Total Count 138 23 14 13 188
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9a One site * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
9a One site Strongly Agree Count 5 3 1 1 10
% within 1 Your village 5.0% 17.6% 7.7% 7.1% 6.9%
Agree Count 17 1 2 2 22
% within 1 Your village 17.0% 5.9% 15.4% 14.3% 15.3%
Disagree Count 31 6 6 6 49
% within 1 Your village 31.0% 35.3% 46.2% 42.9% 34.0%
Strongly disagree Count 47 7 4 5 63
% within 1 Your village 47.0% 41.2% 30.8% 35.7% 43.8%
Total Count 100 17 13 14 144
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9
9b A number of smaller sites * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
9b A number of smaller sites Strongly Agree Count 14 4 6 1 25
% within 1 Your village 11.4% 23.5% 46.2% 7.1% 15.0%
Agree Count 81 7 4 9 101
% within 1 Your village 65.9% 41.2% 30.8% 64.3% 60.5%
Disagree Count 10 5 2 1 18
% within 1 Your village 8.1% 29.4% 15.4% 7.1% 10.8%
Strongly disagree Count 18 1 1 3 23
% within 1 Your village 14.6% 5.9% 7.7% 21.4% 13.8%
Total Count 123 17 13 14 167
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9c Individual plots * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
9c Individual plots Strongly Agree Count 11 3 2 2 18
% within 1 Your village 10.8% 16.7% 15.4% 13.3% 12.2%
Agree Count 57 11 7 8 83
% within 1 Your village 55.9% 61.1% 53.8% 53.3% 56.1%
Disagree Count 18 2 4 3 27
% within 1 Your village 17.6% 11.1% 30.8% 20.0% 18.2%
Strongly disagree Count 16 2 0 2 20
% within 1 Your village 15.7% 11.1% 0.0% 13.3% 13.5%
Total Count 102 18 13 15 148
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
10
9d Infill within existing villages * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
9d Infill within existing villages Strongly Agree Count 27 5 3 5 40
% within 1 Your village 19.9% 26.3% 23.1% 33.3% 21.9%
Agree Count 83 11 9 6 109
% within 1 Your village 61.0% 57.9% 69.2% 40.0% 59.6%
Disagree Count 11 0 1 3 15
% within 1 Your village 8.1% 0.0% 7.7% 20.0% 8.2%
Strongly disagree Count 15 3 0 1 19
% within 1 Your village 11.0% 15.8% 0.0% 6.7% 10.4%
Total Count 136 19 13 15 183
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9e Adjoining existing villages * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
9e Adjoining existing villages Strongly Agree Count 7 3 1 1 12
% within 1 Your village 6.5% 16.7% 7.1% 7.1% 7.8%
Agree Count 35 2 4 6 47
% within 1 Your village 32.7% 11.1% 28.6% 42.9% 30.7%
Disagree Count 22 3 5 1 31
% within 1 Your village 20.6% 16.7% 35.7% 7.1% 20.3%
Strongly disagree Count 43 10 4 6 63
% within 1 Your village 40.2% 55.6% 28.6% 42.9% 41.2%
Total Count 107 18 14 14 153
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
11
13 Restrict second homes * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
13 Restrict second homes Strongly Agree Count 72 11 10 7 100
% within 1 Your village 39.6% 44.0% 62.5% 43.8% 41.8%
Agree Count 51 2 3 5 61
% within 1 Your village 28.0% 8.0% 18.8% 31.3% 25.5%
Disagree Count 32 7 1 2 42
% within 1 Your village 17.6% 28.0% 6.3% 12.5% 17.6%
Strongly disagree Count 27 5 2 2 36
% within 1 Your village 14.8% 20.0% 12.5% 12.5% 15.1%
Total Count 182 25 16 16 239
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12
OUR HOMES: Crosstabulations for Qs 7-9 by household composition
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
7a Need housing in Thurlestone
* Household composition
238 92.2% 20 7.8% 258 100.0%
7b Need housing in Buckland *
Household composition
127 49.2% 131 50.8% 258 100.0%
7c Need housing in Bantham *
Household composition
126 48.8% 132 51.2% 258 100.0%
8a Need flats * Household
composition
171 66.3% 87 33.7% 258 100.0%
8b Need bungalows *
Household composition
171 66.3% 87 33.7% 258 100.0%
8c Need houses * Household
composition
172 66.7% 86 33.3% 258 100.0%
8d Need 1 beds * Household
composition
144 55.8% 114 44.2% 258 100.0%
8e Need 2-3 beds * Household
composition
197 76.4% 61 23.6% 258 100.0%
8f Need 4 beds * Household
composition
133 51.6% 125 48.4% 258 100.0%
8g Need owned homes *
Household composition
180 69.8% 78 30.2% 258 100.0%
8h Need rented homes *
Household composition
167 64.7% 91 35.3% 258 100.0%
13
8i Need build plots * Household
composition
158 61.2% 100 38.8% 258 100.0%
8j Need social to buy *
Household composition
186 72.1% 72 27.9% 258 100.0%
8k Need social to rent *
Household composition
187 72.5% 71 27.5% 258 100.0%
9a One site * Household
composition
143 55.4% 115 44.6% 258 100.0%
9b A number of smaller sites *
Household composition
166 64.3% 92 35.7% 258 100.0%
9c Individual plots * Household
composition
147 57.0% 111 43.0% 258 100.0%
9d Infill within existing villages *
Household composition
182 70.5% 76 29.5% 258 100.0%
9e Adjoining existing villages *
Household composition
153 59.3% 105 40.7% 258 100.0%
14
7a Need housing in Thurlestone * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
7a Need housing in Thurlestone Need a lot more Count 3 4 7 14
% within Household composition 8.1% 6.1% 5.2% 5.9%
Need a few more Count 21 34 65 120
% within Household composition 56.8% 51.5% 48.1% 50.4%
About right Count 11 21 46 78
% within Household composition 29.7% 31.8% 34.1% 32.8%
Too many already Count 2 7 17 26
% within Household composition 5.4% 10.6% 12.6% 10.9%
Total Count 37 66 135 238
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7b Need housing in Buckland * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
7b Need housing in Buckland Need a lot more Count 0 2 4 6
% within Household composition 0.0% 4.3% 8.0% 4.7%
Need a few more Count 16 18 23 57
% within Household composition 53.3% 38.3% 46.0% 44.9%
About right Count 13 23 21 57
% within Household composition 43.3% 48.9% 42.0% 44.9%
Too many already Count 1 4 2 7
% within Household composition 3.3% 8.5% 4.0% 5.5%
Total Count 30 47 50 127
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
15
7c Need housing in Bantham * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
7c Need housing in Bantham Need a lot more Count 2 1 4 7
% within Household composition 6.9% 2.1% 8.0% 5.6%
Need a few more Count 13 20 23 56
% within Household composition 44.8% 42.6% 46.0% 44.4%
About right Count 11 22 19 52
% within Household composition 37.9% 46.8% 38.0% 41.3%
Too many already Count 3 4 4 11
% within Household composition 10.3% 8.5% 8.0% 8.7%
Total Count 29 47 50 126
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8a Need flats * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8a Need flats Not needed Count 12 33 38 83
% within Household composition 40.0% 64.7% 42.2% 48.5%
Not needed very much Count 6 9 23 38
% within Household composition 20.0% 17.6% 25.6% 22.2%
Needed Count 9 7 26 42
% within Household composition 30.0% 13.7% 28.9% 24.6%
Very much needed Count 3 2 3 8
% within Household composition 10.0% 3.9% 3.3% 4.7%
Total Count 30 51 90 171
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
16
8b Need bungalows * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8b Need bungalows Not needed Count 10 19 25 54
% within Household composition 33.3% 36.5% 28.1% 31.6%
Not needed very much Count 7 10 22 39
% within Household composition 23.3% 19.2% 24.7% 22.8%
Needed Count 9 17 36 62
% within Household composition 30.0% 32.7% 40.4% 36.3%
Very much needed Count 4 6 6 16
% within Household composition 13.3% 11.5% 6.7% 9.4%
Total Count 30 52 89 171
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8c Need houses * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8c Need houses Not needed Count 4 11 30 45
% within Household composition 14.8% 20.0% 33.3% 26.2%
Not needed very much Count 3 9 20 32
% within Household composition 11.1% 16.4% 22.2% 18.6%
Needed Count 12 28 34 74
% within Household composition 44.4% 50.9% 37.8% 43.0%
Very much needed Count 8 7 6 21
% within Household composition 29.6% 12.7% 6.7% 12.2%
Total Count 27 55 90 172
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
17
8d Need 1 beds * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8d Need 1 beds Not needed Count 5 22 35 62
% within Household composition 19.2% 45.8% 50.0% 43.1%
Not needed very much Count 9 10 13 32
% within Household composition 34.6% 20.8% 18.6% 22.2%
Needed Count 6 13 18 37
% within Household composition 23.1% 27.1% 25.7% 25.7%
Very much needed Count 6 3 4 13
% within Household composition 23.1% 6.3% 5.7% 9.0%
Total Count 26 48 70 144
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8e Need 2-3 beds * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8e Need 2-3 beds Not needed Count 2 10 21 33
% within Household composition 6.9% 17.2% 19.1% 16.8%
Not needed very much Count 1 4 14 19
% within Household composition 3.4% 6.9% 12.7% 9.6%
Needed Count 15 33 66 114
% within Household composition 51.7% 56.9% 60.0% 57.9%
Very much needed Count 11 11 9 31
% within Household composition 37.9% 19.0% 8.2% 15.7%
Total Count 29 58 110 197
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18
8f Need 4 beds * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8f Need 4 beds Not needed Count 6 29 37 72
% within Household composition 25.0% 60.4% 60.7% 54.1%
Not needed very much Count 11 10 15 36
% within Household composition 45.8% 20.8% 24.6% 27.1%
Needed Count 4 8 4 16
% within Household composition 16.7% 16.7% 6.6% 12.0%
Very much needed Count 3 1 5 9
% within Household composition 12.5% 2.1% 8.2% 6.8%
Total Count 24 48 61 133
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8g Need owned homes * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8g Need owned homes Not needed Count 2 13 20 35
% within Household composition 7.1% 23.2% 20.8% 19.4%
Not needed very much Count 1 8 12 21
% within Household composition 3.6% 14.3% 12.5% 11.7%
Needed Count 14 24 53 91
% within Household composition 50.0% 42.9% 55.2% 50.6%
Very much needed Count 11 11 11 33
% within Household composition 39.3% 19.6% 11.5% 18.3%
Total Count 28 56 96 180
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
19
8h Need rented homes * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8h Need rented homes Not needed Count 2 16 25 43
% within Household composition 7.1% 28.6% 30.1% 25.7%
Not needed very much Count 3 10 13 26
% within Household composition 10.7% 17.9% 15.7% 15.6%
Needed Count 14 22 37 73
% within Household composition 50.0% 39.3% 44.6% 43.7%
Very much needed Count 9 8 8 25
% within Household composition 32.1% 14.3% 9.6% 15.0%
Total Count 28 56 83 167
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8i Need build plots * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8i Need build plots Not needed Count 7 28 41 76
% within Household composition 25.0% 52.8% 53.2% 48.1%
Not needed very much Count 2 9 15 26
% within Household composition 7.1% 17.0% 19.5% 16.5%
Needed Count 7 11 20 38
% within Household composition 25.0% 20.8% 26.0% 24.1%
Very much needed Count 12 5 1 18
% within Household composition 42.9% 9.4% 1.3% 11.4%
Total Count 28 53 77 158
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
20
8j Need social to buy * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8j Need social to buy Not needed Count 11 24 35 70
% within Household composition 37.9% 42.9% 34.7% 37.6%
Not needed very much Count 0 6 15 21
% within Household composition 0.0% 10.7% 14.9% 11.3%
Needed Count 10 17 44 71
% within Household composition 34.5% 30.4% 43.6% 38.2%
Very much needed Count 8 9 7 24
% within Household composition 27.6% 16.1% 6.9% 12.9%
Total Count 29 56 101 186
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
8k Need social to rent * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
8k Need social to rent Not needed Count 9 20 28 57
% within Household composition 33.3% 35.7% 26.9% 30.5%
Not needed very much Count 1 7 13 21
% within Household composition 3.7% 12.5% 12.5% 11.2%
Needed Count 11 18 49 78
% within Household composition 40.7% 32.1% 47.1% 41.7%
Very much needed Count 6 11 14 31
% within Household composition 22.2% 19.6% 13.5% 16.6%
Total Count 27 56 104 187
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
21
9a One site * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
9a One site Strongly Agree Count 3 2 5 10
% within Household composition 11.1% 4.1% 7.5% 7.0%
Agree Count 5 5 12 22
% within Household composition 18.5% 10.2% 17.9% 15.4%
Disagree Count 10 18 21 49
% within Household composition 37.0% 36.7% 31.3% 34.3%
Strongly disagree Count 9 24 29 62
% within Household composition 33.3% 49.0% 43.3% 43.4%
Total Count 27 49 67 143
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9b A number of smaller sites * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
9b A number of smaller sites Strongly Agree Count 7 10 8 25
% within Household composition 22.6% 21.3% 9.1% 15.1%
Agree Count 16 23 62 101
% within Household composition 51.6% 48.9% 70.5% 60.8%
Disagree Count 5 6 6 17
% within Household composition 16.1% 12.8% 6.8% 10.2%
Strongly disagree Count 3 8 12 23
% within Household composition 9.7% 17.0% 13.6% 13.9%
Total Count 31 47 88 166
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
22
9c Individual plots * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
9c Individual plots Strongly Agree Count 10 3 5 18
% within Household composition 32.3% 6.5% 7.1% 12.2%
Agree Count 12 27 44 83
% within Household composition 38.7% 58.7% 62.9% 56.5%
Disagree Count 7 9 10 26
% within Household composition 22.6% 19.6% 14.3% 17.7%
Strongly disagree Count 2 7 11 20
% within Household composition 6.5% 15.2% 15.7% 13.6%
Total Count 31 46 70 147
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
9d Infill within existing villages * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
9d Infill within existing villages Strongly Agree Count 10 13 17 40
% within Household composition 34.5% 24.1% 17.2% 22.0%
Agree Count 16 29 63 108
% within Household composition 55.2% 53.7% 63.6% 59.3%
Disagree Count 2 7 6 15
% within Household composition 6.9% 13.0% 6.1% 8.2%
Strongly disagree Count 1 5 13 19
% within Household composition 3.4% 9.3% 13.1% 10.4%
Total Count 29 54 99 182
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
23
9e Adjoining existing villages * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
9e Adjoining existing villages Strongly Agree Count 2 4 6 12
% within Household composition 6.9% 8.5% 7.8% 7.8%
Agree Count 12 15 20 47
% within Household composition 41.4% 31.9% 26.0% 30.7%
Disagree Count 8 6 17 31
% within Household composition 27.6% 12.8% 22.1% 20.3%
Strongly disagree Count 7 22 34 63
% within Household composition 24.1% 46.8% 44.2% 41.2%
Total Count 29 47 77 153
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
24
OUR ECONOMY: Crosstabulations for Qs 16, 18-20 by household composition and principal residence
16 More employment within parish * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
16 More employment within
parish
Yes Count 30 48 87 165
% within Household
composition
85.7% 72.7% 68.0% 72.1%
No Count 5 18 41 64
% within Household
composition
14.3% 27.3% 32.0% 27.9%
Total Count 35 66 128 229
% within Household
composition
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
18a Support new cafe *
Household composition
224 86.8% 34 13.2% 258 100.0%
18a Support new cafe * 3b Is
this your principal residence?
139 53.9% 119 46.1% 258 100.0%
18b Support new arts *
Household composition
229 88.8% 29 11.2% 258 100.0%
25
18b Support new arts * 3b Is this
your principal residence?
140 54.3% 118 45.7% 258 100.0%
18c Support new watersport *
Household composition
221 85.7% 37 14.3% 258 100.0%
18c Support new watersport *
3b Is this your principal
residence?
134 51.9% 124 48.1% 258 100.0%
18d Support new farmshop *
Household composition
229 88.8% 29 11.2% 258 100.0%
18d Support new farmshop * 3b
Is this your principal residence?
141 54.7% 117 45.3% 258 100.0%
18e Support new campsite *
Household composition
218 84.5% 40 15.5% 258 100.0%
18e Support new campsite * 3b
Is this your principal residence?
133 51.6% 125 48.4% 258 100.0%
18a Support new cafe * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
18a Support new cafe Yes Count 26 33 62 121
% within Household composition 70.3% 50.8% 50.8% 54.0%
No Count 11 32 60 103
% within Household composition 29.7% 49.2% 49.2% 46.0%
Total Count 37 65 122 224
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
26
18a Support new cafe * 3b Is this your principal residence? Crosstabulation
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
18a Support new cafe Yes Count 39 40 79
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
48.8% 67.8% 56.8%
No Count 41 19 60
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
51.3% 32.2% 43.2%
Total Count 80 59 139
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18b Support new arts * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
18b Support new arts Yes Count 30 50 85 165
% within Household composition 85.7% 76.9% 65.9% 72.1%
No Count 5 15 44 64
% within Household composition 14.3% 23.1% 34.1% 27.9%
Total Count 35 65 129 229
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27
18b Support new arts * 3b Is this your principal residence? Crosstabulation
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
18b Support new arts Yes Count 56 49 105
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
67.5% 86.0% 75.0%
No Count 27 8 35
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
32.5% 14.0% 25.0%
Total Count 83 57 140
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18c Support new watersport * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
18c Support new watersport Yes Count 22 34 53 109
% within Household composition 61.1% 52.3% 44.2% 49.3%
No Count 14 31 67 112
% within Household composition 38.9% 47.7% 55.8% 50.7%
Total Count 36 65 120 221
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
28
18c Support new watersport * 3b Is this your principal residence? Crosstabulation
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
18c Support new watersport Yes Count 29 42 71
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
38.2% 72.4% 53.0%
No Count 47 16 63
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
61.8% 27.6% 47.0%
Total Count 76 58 134
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18d Support new farmshop * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
18d Support new farmshop Yes Count 30 57 99 186
% within Household composition 83.3% 87.7% 77.3% 81.2%
No Count 6 8 29 43
% within Household composition 16.7% 12.3% 22.7% 18.8%
Total Count 36 65 128 229
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
29
18d Support new farmshop * 3b Is this your principal residence? Crosstabulation
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
18d Support new farmshop Yes Count 64 55 119
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
77.1% 94.8% 84.4%
No Count 19 3 22
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
22.9% 5.2% 15.6%
Total Count 83 58 141
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18e Support new campsite * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
18e Support new campsite Yes Count 19 18 11 48
% within Household composition 51.4% 28.6% 9.3% 22.0%
No Count 18 45 107 170
% within Household composition 48.6% 71.4% 90.7% 78.0%
Total Count 37 63 118 218
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
30
18e Support new campsite * 3b Is this your principal residence? Crosstabulation
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
18e Support new campsite Yes Count 14 13 27
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
18.4% 22.8% 20.3%
No Count 62 44 106
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
81.6% 77.2% 79.7%
Total Count 76 57 133
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
19 New business hub *
Household composition
234 90.7% 24 9.3% 258 100.0%
20 New small workshops *
Household composition
236 91.5% 22 8.5% 258 100.0%
31
19 New business hub * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
19 New business hub Strongly Agree Count 11 9 20 40
% within Household composition 30.6% 13.4% 15.3% 17.1%
Agree Count 21 29 44 94
% within Household composition 58.3% 43.3% 33.6% 40.2%
Disagree Count 4 16 28 48
% within Household composition 11.1% 23.9% 21.4% 20.5%
Strongly disagree Count 0 13 39 52
% within Household composition 0.0% 19.4% 29.8% 22.2%
Total Count 36 67 131 234
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
20 New small workshops * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
20 New small workshops Strongly Agree Count 16 14 14 44
% within Household composition 43.2% 20.9% 10.6% 18.6%
Agree Count 15 32 64 111
% within Household composition 40.5% 47.8% 48.5% 47.0%
Disagree Count 5 11 23 39
% within Household composition 13.5% 16.4% 17.4% 16.5%
Strongly disagree Count 1 10 31 42
% within Household composition 2.7% 14.9% 23.5% 17.8%
Total Count 37 67 132 236
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
32
OUR WELLBEING: Crosstabulations for Qs 25, 26 & 30 by household composition and by village
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
25a New footpaths * Household
composition
238 92.2% 20 7.8% 258 100.0%
25a New footpaths * 1 Your
village
240 93.0% 18 7.0% 258 100.0%
25b New cycle tracks *
Household composition
223 86.4% 35 13.6% 258 100.0%
25b New cycle tracks * 1 Your
village
225 87.2% 33 12.8% 258 100.0%
25a New footpaths * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
25a New footpaths Strongly Agree Count 25 33 50 108
% within Household composition 67.6% 49.3% 37.3% 45.4%
Agree Count 7 20 64 91
% within Household composition 18.9% 29.9% 47.8% 38.2%
Disagree Count 3 9 14 26
% within Household composition 8.1% 13.4% 10.4% 10.9%
Strongly disagree Count 2 5 6 13
% within Household composition 5.4% 7.5% 4.5% 5.5%
Total Count 37 67 134 238
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
33
25a New footpaths * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
25a New footpaths Strongly Agree Count 79 9 11 10 109
% within 1 Your village 42.9% 37.5% 68.8% 62.5% 45.4%
Agree Count 80 7 3 3 93
% within 1 Your village 43.5% 29.2% 18.8% 18.8% 38.8%
Disagree Count 15 6 1 3 25
% within 1 Your village 8.2% 25.0% 6.3% 18.8% 10.4%
Strongly disagree Count 10 2 1 0 13
% within 1 Your village 5.4% 8.3% 6.3% 0.0% 5.4%
Total Count 184 24 16 16 240
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
25b New cycle tracks * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
25b New cycle tracks Strongly Agree Count 21 21 32 74
% within Household composition 58.3% 33.9% 25.6% 33.2%
Agree Count 9 20 47 76
% within Household composition 25.0% 32.3% 37.6% 34.1%
Disagree Count 2 9 26 37
% within Household composition 5.6% 14.5% 20.8% 16.6%
Strongly disagree Count 4 12 20 36
% within Household composition 11.1% 19.4% 16.0% 16.1%
Total Count 36 62 125 223
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
34
25b New cycle tracks * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
25b New cycle tracks Strongly Agree Count 51 7 8 8 74
% within 1 Your village 29.8% 28.0% 53.3% 57.1% 32.9%
Agree Count 61 7 5 4 77
% within 1 Your village 35.7% 28.0% 33.3% 28.6% 34.2%
Disagree Count 30 5 1 2 38
% within 1 Your village 17.5% 20.0% 6.7% 14.3% 16.9%
Strongly disagree Count 29 6 1 0 36
% within 1 Your village 17.0% 24.0% 6.7% 0.0% 16.0%
Total Count 171 25 15 14 225
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
26a Number of play areas *
Household composition
208 80.6% 50 19.4% 258 100.0%
26a Number of play areas * 1
Your village
209 81.0% 49 19.0% 258 100.0%
26b Equipment in play areas *
Household composition
192 74.4% 66 25.6% 258 100.0%
26b Equipment in play areas * 1
Your village
191 74.0% 67 26.0% 258 100.0%
35
26a Number of play areas * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
26a Number of play areas More than is needed Count 9 6 14 29
% within Household composition 26.5% 10.3% 12.1% 13.9%
About right Count 10 34 60 104
% within Household composition 29.4% 58.6% 51.7% 50.0%
Not good enough Count 15 18 42 75
% within Household composition 44.1% 31.0% 36.2% 36.1%
Total Count 34 58 116 208
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
26a Number of play areas * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
26a Number of play areas More than is needed Count 23 2 1 3 29
% within 1 Your village 14.6% 8.0% 8.3% 20.0% 13.9%
About right Count 77 14 3 10 104
% within 1 Your village 49.0% 56.0% 25.0% 66.7% 49.8%
Not good enough Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 36.3% 36.0% 66.7% 13.3% 36.4%
Total Count 157 25 12 15 209
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
36
26b Equipment in play areas * Household composition Crosstabulation
Household composition
Total
Adults with
children
Adults without
children Pensioners
26b Equipment in play areas More than is needed Count 7 6 12 25
% within Household composition 20.6% 11.1% 11.5% 13.0%
About right Count 13 35 49 97
% within Household composition 38.2% 64.8% 47.1% 50.5%
Not good enough Count 14 13 43 70
% within Household composition 41.2% 24.1% 41.3% 36.5%
Total Count 34 54 104 192
% within Household composition 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
26b Equipment in play areas * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
26b Equipment in play areas More than is needed Count 20 1 1 3 25
% within 1 Your village 14.2% 4.2% 9.1% 20.0% 13.1%
About right Count 65 16 5 10 96
% within 1 Your village 46.1% 66.7% 45.5% 66.7% 50.3%
Not good enough Count 56 7 5 2 70
% within 1 Your village 39.7% 29.2% 45.5% 13.3% 36.6%
Total Count 141 24 11 15 191
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
37
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
30a Support focal point in
Thurlestone * 1 Your village
226 87.6% 32 12.4% 258 100.0%
30b Support focal point in
Buckland * 1 Your village
120 46.5% 138 53.5% 258 100.0%
30c Support focal point in
Bantham * 1 Your village
124 48.1% 134 51.9% 258 100.0%
30a Support focal point in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
30a Support focal point in
Thurlestone
Strongly Agree Count 40 4 6 3 53
% within 1 Your village 22.6% 18.2% 46.2% 21.4% 23.5%
Agree Count 78 9 4 6 97
% within 1 Your village 44.1% 40.9% 30.8% 42.9% 42.9%
Disagree Count 44 6 1 3 54
% within 1 Your village 24.9% 27.3% 7.7% 21.4% 23.9%
Strongly disagree Count 15 3 2 2 22
% within 1 Your village 8.5% 13.6% 15.4% 14.3% 9.7%
Total Count 177 22 13 14 226
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
38
30b Support focal point in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
30b Support focal point in
Buckland
Strongly Agree Count 18 4 6 3 31
% within 1 Your village 26.1% 16.7% 42.9% 23.1% 25.8%
Agree Count 29 8 5 5 47
% within 1 Your village 42.0% 33.3% 35.7% 38.5% 39.2%
Disagree Count 15 8 1 3 27
% within 1 Your village 21.7% 33.3% 7.1% 23.1% 22.5%
Strongly disagree Count 7 4 2 2 15
% within 1 Your village 10.1% 16.7% 14.3% 15.4% 12.5%
Total Count 69 24 14 13 120
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
30c Support focal point in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
30c Support focal point in
Bantham
Strongly Agree Count 21 3 6 3 33
% within 1 Your village 29.6% 13.6% 37.5% 20.0% 26.6%
Agree Count 29 7 6 6 48
% within 1 Your village 40.8% 31.8% 37.5% 40.0% 38.7%
Disagree Count 14 8 1 4 27
% within 1 Your village 19.7% 36.4% 6.3% 26.7% 21.8%
Strongly disagree Count 7 4 3 2 16
% within 1 Your village 9.9% 18.2% 18.8% 13.3% 12.9%
Total Count 71 22 16 15 124
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
39
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE: Crosstabulations for Q 44 by village
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
44a More parking in Thurlestone
* 1 Your village
125 48.4% 133 51.6% 258 100.0%
44b More parking in Buckland *
1 Your village
48 18.6% 210 81.4% 258 100.0%
44c More parking in Bantham *
1 Your village
63 24.4% 195 75.6% 258 100.0%
44a More parking in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
44a More parking in Thurlestone Single new car park Count 63 10 3 4 80
% within 1 Your village 63.0% 83.3% 60.0% 50.0% 64.0%
More spaces throughout village Count 37 2 2 4 45
% within 1 Your village 37.0% 16.7% 40.0% 50.0% 36.0%
Total Count 100 12 5 8 125
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
40
44b More parking in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
44b More parking in Buckland Single new car park Count 17 4 2 2 25
% within 1 Your village 56.7% 57.1% 50.0% 28.6% 52.1%
More spaces throughout village Count 13 3 2 5 23
% within 1 Your village 43.3% 42.9% 50.0% 71.4% 47.9%
Total Count 30 7 4 7 48
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
44c More parking in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
44c More parking in Bantham Single new car park Count 26 6 4 4 40
% within 1 Your village 65.0% 66.7% 66.7% 50.0% 63.5%
More spaces throughout village Count 14 3 2 4 23
% within 1 Your village 35.0% 33.3% 33.3% 50.0% 36.5%
Total Count 40 9 6 8 63
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1
APPENDIX B
OUR HOMES: Crosstabulations for Qs 7 & 8 by principal residence
7a Need housing in Thurlestone * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
7a Need housing in Thurlestone Need a lot more Count 3 2 5
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
3.5% 3.4% 3.5%
Need a few more Count 42 31 73
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
48.8% 53.4% 50.7%
About right Count 31 21 52
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
36.0% 36.2% 36.1%
Too many already Count 10 4 14
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
11.6% 6.9% 9.7%
Total Count 86 58 144
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .943a 3 .815
Likelihood Ratio .978 3 .807
Linear-by-Linear Association .575 1 .448
N of Valid Cases 144 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 2.01.
2
7b Need housing in Buckland * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
7b Need housing in Buckland Need a lot more Count 1 1 2
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
2.3% 2.7% 2.5%
Need a few more Count 19 15 34
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
44.2% 40.5% 42.5%
About right Count 20 20 40
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
46.5% 54.1% 50.0%
Too many already Count 3 1 4
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
7.0% 2.7% 5.0%
Total Count 43 37 80
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.026a 3 .795
Likelihood Ratio 1.068 3 .785
Linear-by-Linear Association .010 1 .922
N of Valid Cases 80 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is .93.
3
7c Need housing in Bantham * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
7c Need housing in Bantham Need a lot more Count 1 2 3
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
2.4% 5.4% 3.8%
Need a few more Count 17 16 33
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
40.5% 43.2% 41.8%
About right Count 20 15 35
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
47.6% 40.5% 44.3%
Too many already Count 4 4 8
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
9.5% 10.8% 10.1%
Total Count 42 37 79
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .765a 3 .858
Likelihood Ratio .770 3 .857
Linear-by-Linear Association .213 1 .644
N of Valid Cases 79 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 1.41.
4
8a Need flats * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8a Need flats Not needed Count 32 22 54
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
52.5% 50.0% 51.4%
Not needed very much Count 13 10 23
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
21.3% 22.7% 21.9%
Needed Count 15 11 26
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
24.6% 25.0% 24.8%
Very much needed Count 1 1 2
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
1.6% 2.3% 1.9%
Total Count 61 44 105
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .109a 3 .991
Likelihood Ratio .108 3 .991
Linear-by-Linear Association .055 1 .814
N of Valid Cases 105 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is .84.
5
8b Need bungalows * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8b Need bungalows Not needed Count 18 18 36
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
30.0% 41.9% 35.0%
Not needed very much Count 17 10 27
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
28.3% 23.3% 26.2%
Needed Count 22 13 35
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
36.7% 30.2% 34.0%
Very much needed Count 3 2 5
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
5.0% 4.7% 4.9%
Total Count 60 43 103
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.566a 3 .667
Likelihood Ratio 1.559 3 .669
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.022 1 .312
N of Valid Cases 103 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 2.09.
6
8c Need houses * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8c Need houses Not needed Count 13 11 24
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
21.3% 25.6% 23.1%
Not needed very much Count 15 7 22
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
24.6% 16.3% 21.2%
Needed Count 26 23 49
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
42.6% 53.5% 47.1%
Very much needed Count 7 2 9
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
11.5% 4.7% 8.7%
Total Count 61 43 104
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.012a 3 .390
Likelihood Ratio 3.138 3 .371
Linear-by-Linear Association .142 1 .707
N of Valid Cases 104 a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 3.72.
7
8d Need 1 beds * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8d Need 1 beds Not needed Count 23 13 36
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
48.9% 38.2% 44.4%
Not needed very much Count 11 12 23
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
23.4% 35.3% 28.4%
Needed Count 13 8 21
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
27.7% 23.5% 25.9%
Very much needed Count 0 1 1
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
0.0% 2.9% 1.2%
Total Count 47 34 81
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.003a 3 .391
Likelihood Ratio 3.351 3 .341
Linear-by-Linear Association .415 1 .519
N of Valid Cases 81 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is .42.
8
8e Need 2-3 beds * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8e Need 2-3 beds Not needed Count 10 7 17
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
13.2% 14.9% 13.8%
Not needed very much Count 9 4 13
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
11.8% 8.5% 10.6%
Needed Count 46 31 77
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
60.5% 66.0% 62.6%
Very much needed Count 11 5 16
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
14.5% 10.6% 13.0%
Total Count 76 47 123
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .834a 3 .841
Likelihood Ratio .850 3 .837
Linear-by-Linear Association .063 1 .802
N of Valid Cases 123 a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 4.97.
9
8f Need 4 beds * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8f Need 4 beds Not needed Count 22 18 40
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
47.8% 54.5% 50.6%
Not needed very much Count 12 10 22
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
26.1% 30.3% 27.8%
Needed Count 9 4 13
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
19.6% 12.1% 16.5%
Very much needed Count 3 1 4
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
6.5% 3.0% 5.1%
Total Count 46 33 79
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.404a 3 .705
Likelihood Ratio 1.454 3 .693
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.040 1 .308
N of Valid Cases 79 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 1.67.
10
8g Need owned homes * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8g Need owned homes Not needed Count 13 6 19
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
19.4% 14.6% 17.6%
Not needed very much Count 9 6 15
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
13.4% 14.6% 13.9%
Needed Count 36 25 61
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
53.7% 61.0% 56.5%
Very much needed Count 9 4 13
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
13.4% 9.8% 12.0%
Total Count 67 41 108
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .877a 3 .831
Likelihood Ratio .892 3 .827
Linear-by-Linear Association .066 1 .797
N of Valid Cases 108 a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 4.94.
11
8h Need rented homes * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8h Need rented homes Not needed Count 16 8 24
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
28.6% 18.6% 24.2%
Not needed very much Count 9 7 16
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
16.1% 16.3% 16.2%
Needed Count 25 25 50
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
44.6% 58.1% 50.5%
Very much needed Count 6 3 9
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
10.7% 7.0% 9.1%
Total Count 56 43 99
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.248a 3 .522
Likelihood Ratio 2.276 3 .517
Linear-by-Linear Association .674 1 .412
N of Valid Cases 99 a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 3.91.
12
8i Need build plots * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8i Need build plots Not needed Count 25 19 44
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
42.4% 50.0% 45.4%
Not needed very much Count 14 2 16
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
23.7% 5.3% 16.5%
Needed Count 18 13 31
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
30.5% 34.2% 32.0%
Very much needed Count 2 4 6
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
3.4% 10.5% 6.2%
Total Count 59 38 97
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.077a 3 .069
Likelihood Ratio 7.852 3 .049
Linear-by-Linear Association .240 1 .624
N of Valid Cases 97 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 2.35.
13
8j Need social to buy * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8j Need social to buy Not needed Count 25 14 39
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
36.8% 30.4% 34.2%
Not needed very much Count 9 4 13
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
13.2% 8.7% 11.4%
Needed Count 26 24 50
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
38.2% 52.2% 43.9%
Very much needed Count 8 4 12
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
11.8% 8.7% 10.5%
Total Count 68 46 114
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.278a 3 .517
Likelihood Ratio 2.285 3 .515
Linear-by-Linear Association .490 1 .484
N of Valid Cases 114 a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 4.84.
14
8k Need social to rent * 3b Is this your principal residence?
Crosstab
3b Is this your principal residence?
Total
My principal
residence
Not my principal
residence
8k Need social to rent Not needed Count 20 13 33
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
29.9% 28.3% 29.2%
Not needed very much Count 9 4 13
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
13.4% 8.7% 11.5%
Needed Count 29 24 53
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
43.3% 52.2% 46.9%
Very much needed Count 9 5 14
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
13.4% 10.9% 12.4%
Total Count 67 46 113
% within 3b Is this your principal
residence?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.160a 3 .763
Likelihood Ratio 1.176 3 .759
Linear-by-Linear Association .072 1 .788
N of Valid Cases 113 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 5.29.
15
OUR ECONOMY: Crosstabulations for Q16 by village
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
16 More employment within
parish * 1 Your village
231 89.5% 27 10.5% 258 100.0%
16 More employment within parish * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
16 More employment within
parish
Yes Count 124 16 14 12 166
% within 1 Your village 70.5% 69.6% 87.5% 75.0% 71.9%
No Count 52 7 2 4 65
% within 1 Your village 29.5% 30.4% 12.5% 25.0% 28.1%
Total Count 176 23 16 16 231
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.245a 3 .523
Likelihood Ratio 2.577 3 .462
Linear-by-Linear Association .952 1 .329
N of Valid Cases 231 a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 4.50.
16
OUR WELLBEING: Crosstabulations for Q27 by village
27a1 More play areas in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27a1 More play areas in
Thurlestone
0 Count 29 4 5 2 40
% within 1 Your village 50.9% 44.4% 62.5% 100.0% 52.6%
Yes Count 28 5 3 0 36
% within 1 Your village 49.1% 55.6% 37.5% 0.0% 47.4%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27a2 More play areas in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27a2 More play areas in
Buckland
0 Count 36 2 4 1 43
% within 1 Your village 63.2% 22.2% 50.0% 50.0% 56.6%
Yes Count 21 7 4 1 33
% within 1 Your village 36.8% 77.8% 50.0% 50.0% 43.4%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
17
27a3 More play areas in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27a3 More play areas in
Bantham
0 Count 36 4 1 1 42
% within 1 Your village 63.2% 44.4% 12.5% 50.0% 55.3%
Yes Count 21 5 7 1 34
% within 1 Your village 36.8% 55.6% 87.5% 50.0% 44.7%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27b1 More informal play areas in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27b1 More informal play areas
in Thurlestone
0 Count 32 4 6 2 44
% within 1 Your village 56.1% 44.4% 75.0% 100.0% 57.9%
Yes Count 25 5 2 0 32
% within 1 Your village 43.9% 55.6% 25.0% 0.0% 42.1%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27b2 More informal play areas in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27b2 More informal play areas
in Buckland
0 Count 43 3 6 2 54
% within 1 Your village 75.4% 33.3% 75.0% 100.0% 71.1%
Yes Count 14 6 2 0 22
% within 1 Your village 24.6% 66.7% 25.0% 0.0% 28.9%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
18
27b3 More informal play areas in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27b3 More informal play areas
in Bantham
0 Count 45 6 5 2 58
% within 1 Your village 78.9% 66.7% 62.5% 100.0% 76.3%
Yes Count 12 3 3 0 18
% within 1 Your village 21.1% 33.3% 37.5% 0.0% 23.7%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27c1 More nature trails in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27c1 More nature trails in
Thurlestone
0 Count 30 6 4 1 41
% within 1 Your village 52.6% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 53.9%
Yes Count 27 3 4 1 35
% within 1 Your village 47.4% 33.3% 50.0% 50.0% 46.1%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27c2 More nature trails in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27c2 More nature trails in
Buckland
0 Count 38 2 5 1 46
% within 1 Your village 66.7% 22.2% 62.5% 50.0% 60.5%
Yes Count 19 7 3 1 30
% within 1 Your village 33.3% 77.8% 37.5% 50.0% 39.5%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
19
27c3 More nature trails in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27c3 More nature trails in
Bantham
0 Count 41 5 4 1 51
% within 1 Your village 71.9% 55.6% 50.0% 50.0% 67.1%
Yes Count 16 4 4 1 25
% within 1 Your village 28.1% 44.4% 50.0% 50.0% 32.9%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27d1 More facilities for teenagers in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27d1 More facilities for
teenagers in Thurlestone
0 Count 30 3 4 1 38
% within 1 Your village 52.6% 33.3% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Yes Count 27 6 4 1 38
% within 1 Your village 47.4% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27d2 More facilities for teenagers in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27d2 More facilities for
teenagers in Buckland
0 Count 47 4 7 1 59
% within 1 Your village 82.5% 44.4% 87.5% 50.0% 77.6%
Yes Count 10 5 1 1 17
% within 1 Your village 17.5% 55.6% 12.5% 50.0% 22.4%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
20
27d3 More facilities for teenagers in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27d3 More facilities for
teenagers in Bantham
0 Count 46 5 7 1 59
% within 1 Your village 80.7% 55.6% 87.5% 50.0% 77.6%
Yes Count 11 4 1 1 17
% within 1 Your village 19.3% 44.4% 12.5% 50.0% 22.4%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27e1 More sports pitches in Thurlestone * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27e1 More sports pitches in
Thurlestone
0 Count 26 4 4 0 34
% within 1 Your village 45.6% 44.4% 50.0% 0.0% 44.7%
Yes Count 31 5 4 2 42
% within 1 Your village 54.4% 55.6% 50.0% 100.0% 55.3%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
27e2 More sports pitches in Buckland * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27e2 More sports pitches in
Buckland
0 Count 54 4 6 2 66
% within 1 Your village 94.7% 44.4% 75.0% 100.0% 86.8%
Yes Count 3 5 2 0 10
% within 1 Your village 5.3% 55.6% 25.0% 0.0% 13.2%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
21
27e3 More sports pitches in Bantham * 1 Your village Crosstabulation
1 Your village
Total Thurlestone Buckland Bantham
Outlying Rural
Areas
27e3 More sports pitches in
Bantham
0 Count 52 5 6 2 65
% within 1 Your village 91.2% 55.6% 75.0% 100.0% 85.5%
Yes Count 5 4 2 0 11
% within 1 Your village 8.8% 44.4% 25.0% 0.0% 14.5%
Total Count 57 9 8 2 76
% within 1 Your village 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
