| |
|
| |
Introduction |
|
| |
This paper reflects the concerns expressed by Diggle residents at both the second Community Association meeting held on 12th December, 2006 and those expressed individually on the Registration Form by members subsequent to the meeting. |
|
| |
Methodology |
|
| |
Attenders at the meeting on 12th December, 2006 broke up into 4 groups and each group was asked to identify what they considered the 4 main concerns the Association should address. |
|
| |
The Registration Form completed subsequent to the meeting invited members to identify up to 3 personal concerns. |
|
| |
Issues identified at the Meeting |
|
| |
3 of the 4 groups prioritised the 4 main concerns as requested, the fourth identified 6 but 2 of those 6 were identified by that group only and have been ignored as not being ones of prime concern to the whole group although they have been mentioned in the table on final analysis (Fig 1). The italics at the end of each issue reflect comments made at the meeting. |
|
| |
Main Concerns:
- Road Safety on Huddersfield Road 4 (This included concern about parking at the Uppermill end of Huddersfield Road which it was argued at the meeting slowed down traffic and therefore increased road safety).
- Public Transport including provision of Diggle Station 3 (The paucity of public transport in the evenings was highlighted by one member. Unreliability was the second issue).
- Village Security 3 (This was linked to the provision of a Community Centre and the absence of provision for youths in particular during evenings).
- Future of Shaw’s Site 2 (Perhaps surprisingly only half the groups identified this as an issue but was a little more dominant in the individual concerns expressed by members – see Para.4.2).
- Litter/Dog Fowling 2 (An audit of litter is to be carried out on 3rd January, 2007 full report will be available for the Executive meeting on 7.0.07).
- ‘Phone mast on the Bus Turning Circle near the Diggle Hotel. 2.
|
|
| |
Issues identified Through the Registration Forms |
|
| |
At the time of writing 29 Registration Forms had been completed. 4 Forms had no concerns expressed and 5 had only two cited. There were 70 concerns within Forms 2 of which have been analysed as coming under one heading. The number of concerns is therefore 68. |
|
| |
Main Concerns:
- 19 of the 25 who responded felt road safety was an issue. Comments about Huddersfield Road dominated although parking was also an issue. Two respondents mentioned a preference for speed bumps on Huddersfield Road.
- 11 mentioned village security. This heading included facilities for youths and the need for a community centre. 3 mentioned policing specifically.
- Public transport was also mentioned by 11. 8 of 11 specified the need for a Railway Station at Diggle. (There was publicity about the absence of a Railway Station in the Oldham Chronicle on 28.12.06 and all 3 of the forms returned after that date mentioned the station).
- 10 made reference to the general appearance of the village. Included in this was litter – 5. 3 mentioned dog fowling. One the absence of toilet facilities and another the slipshod way in which the emptied bottle containers are left strewn everywhere after they have been emptied. Overgrown trees were mentioned twice although in one instance this referred to obscured road signs.
- The re-development of Shaw’s was highlighted by 6.
- Concern about the erection of a ‘phone mast on the bus turning circle near Kiln Green was mentioned by 4 (Likely that few knew of this probability).
- The need to keep open the Post Office was mentioned by 3. (Publicity in the Oldham Chronicle on 18.12.06 highlighted this issue and 2 of the 3 later submissions of the Registration Form mentioned this issue.)
- Development of land adjacent to Heather Way by 2.
- The absence of infrastructure to cater for the considerable extension of housing provision was cited by 2.
|
|
| |
Amalgamation of the Issues identified both at the Meeting and through the Registration Forms |
|
| |
Many of the respondents at the meeting also completed the Registration Form and inevitably there is some duplication in the combined replies. In a group situation much can depend upon who shouts the loudest reflecting the strength of feeling by individuals within the group itself. Nonetheless there is some legitimacy in combining the two methods of highlighting issues. I have also included in the table below the two additional issues identified by the 4th group at the meeting when there were 6, rather than 4, identified.
Amalgam of issues identified (fig 1) |
|
| |
|
Issue |
Meeting |
Registration Form |
4th Group Identification |
Total |
| Road Safety |
4 |
19 |
1 |
24 |
| Village Security |
3 |
11 |
|
14 |
| Transport |
3 |
11 |
|
14 |
| Village appearance |
2 |
10 |
1 |
13 |
| Shaw’s |
2 |
6 |
|
8 |
| Phone Mast |
- |
4 |
|
4 |
| Post Office |
- |
3 |
|
3 |
| Heather Way |
|
2 |
|
2 |
| Planning |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
| |
Summary of Findings |
|
| |
It is clear road safety dominates the issues that need addressing. This embraces speeding, parking on foot-paths, traffic calming and in two instances the condition of road surfaces. Arguably the planning could have been included in the village appearance heading which would make it the second priority to be addressed. The litter audit to be carried out on 3rd January, 2007 should go someway to address this issue. There is an inevitability the possible closure of the Post Office and Shaw’s will become more of a burning issue as time passes. Knowledge of the probable erection of a telephone mast on the bus turning circle is limited and was not therefore identified as readily as might have been the case with a wider awareness. Heather Way as an issue was identified by residents who lived in that locality but it is an issue which has to be faced. |
|
| |
2nd January, 2007 Royce G. Franklin, Secretary Diggle Community Association |
|
