Our health and social services were generally perceived to be good or reasonable by those using them.

More than 8 out of 10 users thought the District Nurses, Ambulance Service, Chiropody and facilities for the loan of medical equipment good. Modbury Caring was particularly appreciated.

Although numbers commenting on Meals on Wheels, Home Helps and the Care Managers were small, the majority rated them as poor. This must be a cause for considerable concern.

Action: Representatives of the service providers will be invited to look at how these services can be improved locally.

A caring spirit is apparent as over 200 people are willing to be involved in a good neighbour scheme, 41 once a week and 17 once a month or more, the rest occasionally. A marvellous asset for the parish.

One in twenty are disabled and this means that 18 people face potential difficulties. They rated access to the shops and Memorial Hall reasonable but both public transport and recreational facilities as poor. Between a third and a half of disabled respondents had no opinion. Is this because they do not wish to or cannot physically use facilities? There is a need for further research.

Action: With many organisations now committed to improving access, those noted will be invited to discuss with residents how the needs of our parishioners can be better met.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Particularly highly rated were the Coastguards and Air Ambulance. Seen as generally good or reasonable were the car parks, fire service, mobile library, post offices and shops, refuse collection, SWEB and British Telecom. Most people think our beaches are good or reasonable and the footpaths were rated reasonable.

Opinion varied widely on South West Water, Neighbourhood Watch, Police and public toilets, while litter bins and recycling facilities were generally regarded as poor.

Action: These organisations will be invited to meet parishioners and discuss ways in which improvements to these services and facilities can be implemented.

ENVIRONMENT

The responses can be divided into several parts.

• Nuisances most generally cited were dog mess (by 175 people) Burgh Island effluent (also 175 people), jet skis (148), random car parking (141) and secondhand car sales (97).
• Light pollution in various forms was noted by many people. The new development at Bigbury-on-Sea, lights on Burgh Island, the Golf Club and neighbours security lights were specifically mentioned.
• Other causes of offence were more local but nevertheless important to those involved. The parking of a bus at Coombe Cross (now moved to the Royal Oak), overhead cables, barking dogs and cooking smells are problematical in some parts of the parish.

The derelict barn at Bigbury village brought some strong responses, with a desire to safeguard the habitat of barn owls and against any development.

Action: There are many environmental issues, some of which are already being addressed. Burgh Island effluent is the subject of discussions involving the Environment Agency and should be resolved by summer 1999. Others, such as random parking, light pollution and barking dogs can be solved by our showing greater awareness of neighbours. How to raise awareness and overcome the problems will be discussed at the public meeting.

There are some very clear views on what we want and do not want.

• We do not want pavements, street lights and more road signs. Some 200 people commented on each of these with strong feelings that the parish should remain rural – and not become ‘suburban’.
• Equally strongly held views were that trees and flowers should be planted, poop scoop/bins are needed and recycling facilities improved (all by 250 people or more).

Action: The local authorities will be invited to come and discuss how these wishes can be met. The planting scheme already started could be extended, with many more volunteers ready to help.

It is particularly pleasing to note the many offers of help with environmental projects:

If these can be harnessed there is a potential for much positive action to improve our environment.

HOUSING

Housing Needed

Whilst 36% of those responding to the type of housing needed in the Parish felt that no further housing was required, 37% would like to see housing for local people and 25% housing for young people, with less than 10% feeling that there was a need for family housing.

Acceptable Housing Development

People felt that any development would best be accomplished by converting redundant buildings and in-filling with single buildings. 31% said that none was needed.

Other Comments Raised

• Refurbish/develop council houses at St. Ann’s Chapel
• No infrastructure for young families
• In-filling only
• Mid-cost housing needed
• Housing for disabled
• Shared ownership with local authority
• Removal of second homes: higher Council Tax than residents

The majority of people (54%) came to live in the parish because of ‘ love of the sea’, whilst 25% retired to the area.

50% of respondents see the future of the parish as a balanced community, with 45% wanting no change and 25% seeing a greater role for tourism.