Retailing in rural areas: A case study in Norfolk

0016-7185/78/0301-0107

Geoforum, Vol. 9, pp. 107-126, 1978. 0 Pergamon Press Limited, Printed in Great Britain.

$02.00/O

Retailing in Rural Areas: A Case Study in Norfolk R. G. HARMAN,

Hertford,

U.K.*

Abstract: In Britain the decline of facilities in rural settlements

in the face of increasing urban dependence is becoming a major policy issue; despite high mobility, many people still lack access to essential facilities. This paper is based on fieldwork carried out mostly during 1976 in two rural areas of Norfolk, as part of a Government-sponsored study of rural transport and accessibility. It looks first at the pattern of shops and their location related to parish size, and then discusses levels of use in comparison with urban facilities, drawing on household activity surveys. The paper then analyses in depth the ownership and operation of village shops, using the results of a survey carried out among the proprietors of the shops in the two study areas, and also considers the issues that concern shopkeepers and villagers. Finally it notes changes over the past two years in the pattern of facilities and discusses the case of two villages. The implications for rural planning are examined, and the author concludes that development of rural settlements must be based on sensitive and local understanding, rather than directive blanket policies, if reasonable access to shops and similar facilities is to be retained.

Introduction

Increasing concentration of activities and facilities on urban centres in Britain, coupled with growing mobility for a good part of the population, though by no means all, has over the past two decades gradually reduced the level of facilities located in rural areas outside towns and larger villages. In recent years the problems encountered by many rural inhabitants in even reaching facilities that are accepted by society as basic necessities (inc1uding.a reasonable job, shop, a school, a doctor and welfare services) has led to growing concern. This is reflected in public discussion on the preparation and implementation of plans by regional and local government bodies, as well as on the activities of commercial and public utility bodies. To help gain an improved understanding of the problems, the Department of the Environment commissioned the Centre of East Anglian Studies at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, to * Planning Officer (Transport Coordinator), Hertfordshire County Council, Hertford, U.K. (formerly Team Leader, Rural Transport & Accessibility Project, University of East Anglia).

carry out a two-year and accessibility.

study of rural transport

This study was intended to reflect problems in England and Wales, and some of the work involved consideration of issues common to rural areas generally. However, much of the study involved analysis of various issues in respect of Norfolk, generally regarded as a distinctly rural County, with two areas being selected for detailed study so as to gain a close understanding of problems for individuals and communities at local level (see Figure 1). These two areas are Area 1. An area of about 10 km radius in the north-east of the County, centred on the market town of North Walsham, and including a small part of the coastline; 23 parishes with a total population of 9,102 in 1971, community sizes ranging from 103 to 1538. Area 2. A triangular area to the west of Norwich, with a strong element of orientation on Norwich: 21 parishes with a total population of 9,6 13 in 197 1, community sizes ranging from 92 to 1458.

Geoforum/Volume

108

l

9/Number

Wroxhom

NORWICH . Great Yarmouth

l

lE

. Attlebomugh 0

5

IOKms

Lowestof

t

l

z

Figure

issl County

la. Location

of the Study Areas.

of Norfd k

Figure

lb.

Location of the County of Norfolk in Great Britain.

2/1978

Geoforum/Volume

9lNumber

I09

211978

Table 1. Characteristics

of Study Areas

Study Areas Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion

ofpopulation ofpopulation of households of households

Proportion

of households with telephone

Estimated household

aged 61t (1971) 17tin employment with no car (1971) withno car (1975)

B (1971) B B A

(1975)

25% 54% 35% 27%

A 52%

disposable income pa (1975)

A &2500

Norfolk County

England and Wales

B B B C

B B B C

19% 54% 40% (E.Anglia) 34% C (E.Anglia) 48% C (E.Anglia)

Persons per hectare (1971) (Sources - A study area surveys, B 1971 Census, C Family Expenditure

Key data relating to the study areas, and to Norfolk County and England and Wales for purposes of comparison, are shown in Table 1. Levels of public transport cannot so easily be reduced to simple figures. Available studies suggest that levels in East Anglian counties are generally lower than for England and Wales as a whole, and the two study areas, like most rural parts, have less frequent services than in the towns. Provision varies widely from parish to parish; it does not bear any overall relationship to size of community; and the existence of a high-level service through a parish does not necessarily mean that any one settlement, even the main one, is directly served. In sum, travel without a car, even once a day to and from a main centre, is often difficult and sometimes impossible. No useful account can be given here, even in summary form, of the detail differences between villages in their characteristics, whether definable (e.g. car ownership or proportion of retired people) or nondefinable. However, these differences exist and they play a role ; indeed, social and historical factors at village level may be largely responsible for the existence, or lack of, a shop (or other facilities for that matter). This must be borne in mind in considering the results and comments in this paper. A comprehensive household questionnaire survey was carried out in the two study areas, covering 635 households (a response rate of 68% on a stratified random sample of effect-

16% 59% 48% 42%

C 5 1% C (UK) (W ,200) B 3.22

Survey)

ively 935) containing 1,735 individuals; the resultant data were validated against Census and other available data, and subsequently used to show up aspects of current rural activities and the incidence of accessibility problems. Most of the project’s final report and findings were, however, based on desk studies of the area. Several items of fieldwork were carried out by the author, of which the following on rural contributed some information shopping inter-alia: (a) a comprehensive survey of the location and type of facilities, using local maps and directories to produce an initial list and then making a personal visit to every settlement in both areas; (b) discussion with about half the parish councils and other local representatives on local issues related to accessibility (including shopping habits); (c) a structural discussion with some parish councils or representatives to obtain their views about the potential value of various hypothetical solutions to rural accessibility problems. Discussion with officers of the local planning authorities (Norfolk County Council and the three District Councils concerned with the study areas) as well as with various other official bodies (e.g. the Chamber of Commerce) also yielded valuable information and viewpoints. Details of the projects’ final published report, and of other relevant items, are given in the brief bibliography at the end of this paper.

110

Geoforum/Volume

The Survey of Rural Shops

During the course of the project, it became clear that the village shopkeeper plays, or can play, an important role in rural areas. Planning policies for rural development in Britain make assumptions about the reaction of local traders to particular environments, but these are generally based on general trends rather than detailed knowledge. Thus, it was decided to carry out a survey of all shopkeepers in the two study areas. The method chosen was to send out a questionnaire to each shop identified in the survey of facilities, together with a covering letter and stamped envelope for reply, with a follow-up personal call on those shopkeepers who did not return their questionnaire by post. The qu~stiollna~e (a copy of which appears as an Appendix to this paper) had three pages, with 13 questions, 10 factual and three seeking opinions: the covering letter emphasised that individual responses would be kept in confidence (the County Chamber of Commerce kindly ~~ubl~shed a brief item on the survey and its purpose in their newsletter). Despatch of the questionnaire started in March 1976, a copy being sent to every identified shop in the areas. By the end of April, about one-third of the (~Llestionnaires had been returned, plus a handful indicating invalid addresses. A personal follow-up was carried out during June, and most of the remaining addresses contacted (or checked off). Final results were as shown in Table 2.

Table

2.

Results of Questionnaire

Total identified Invalid* (i.e. not shops) Hence, total valid shops of which - response obtained refusal no contact made after three or more attempts

Survey of Shops 104 16 78 60 10

100% 78% 13%

8

9%

* See later for definition.

The personal follow-up also gave the opportunity for informal discussion with a number of shopkeepers, sometimes at length and quite often controversial, but invariably of use in adding life to the raw data.

Number, Type Other Facilities

and

Location

9/Number

2/ 1978

of Shops and

(All data and information in this and subsequent sections of this paper refer to the situation as at early 1976, when the surveys took place. Comments on changes are included later.) The 78 shops identified as effective premises included mainly small village grocery and general stores. They also included a number in the larger of specialist shops, mainly bakers, butchers, hardware and centres: drapery/clothing shops. The premises identified, but written off as invalid, included several sub-post offices which do not sell except perhaps sweets and staanything, tionery; some addresses serving as bases for specialist mobile traders (local self-employed dairymen and bread roundsmen); and a few cases of traders who had given up business. It is relevant here to note that two distinct categories of parish may be id~ntifie~l. Of the 44 parishes, 40 may be termed “small rural”, usually with one main village and outlying farms and hamlets; though some are just a group of scattered hamlets. The mean population size of these was, at the 1971 Census, 338, and median size was 306. The remaining four parishes are all much larger. The two coastal parishes in area 1, Mundesley and Bacton, both function as minor seaside resorts; in area 3, Hingham and Mattishall both form local market and service centres. Mean popLIlation of these four was 1293 at the 1971 Census. Throughout the rest of this to as paper, the 40 parishes are referred and the remaining 4 as “small parishes” “large parishes” where distinction is necessary. (Location of parishes and indication of facilities appear in Figure 2.) This feature shows clearly in the number of shops. The 40 small parishes have 42 shops between them. But the 4 large parishes have 36 shops, and indeed represent the only ones with several shops. The breakdown according to the number of shops is shown in Table 3. The wide range of population sizes for each category should be noted. The small parishes usually have no fixed commercial or other outlet in addition to their shop (or shops),

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

2/1978

111

Area

E

I

Garage

H Public house/inn P

(Sub) Post office

Q Combwted Sub P.o./shop S

Note

maps not to same scale

Shop

M Large parish centre 4lOPopulation

(1971census)

Area 2

UkardinghaF-

f

127 (

Hinghamm

Figure 2. Study Areas - Location

1

of Facility and Parish Size.

Geoforum/Volume

112

Table

3.

Several Two or three One None

4.

2/1978

Parishes by Number of Shops

Number of shops

Table

9/Number

Number of parishes in group 4 11 1s 14

Population range

Average population (197 1) Median Mean t 293 1400 480 494 361 357 204 205

836&t 208-m to3p 92

538 722 715

321

Number of Parishes with Shops and/or sub-PO Combined shop/PO

Separate shop and PO

Small parishes Large parishes

24

2 4

5

9

40 4

Total

24

6

5

9

44

if there is one, with three exceptions.* are :

These

(i) the local roundsman, etc., mentioned (very few): (ii) a separate sub post office (see below); (iii) one or more local farms or houses selling greengrocery on a regular basis (a common feature).

The larger parishes have, as already indicated, a fair proportion of specialist shops, which may be summarised as follows: Hardware, building materials Drapery/clothing Butchers, fish merchants Bakers Pharmacists Wines and spirits 1

4 4 6 3

PO but no shop

Furthermore, specialisation covers other premises which were not included in the survey but have a limited or very specialist retail ELlnction. These include: 4 8 2 (Mundesley only) 3 (Mundesley only) 5 (Mundesley and Bacton only 2 (Mundesley & Hingham)

* One small parish in area 1 has a fish and chip bar. attached to a shop, and one small parish in each area has a butcher’s shop.

Neither

Total

Many parishes possess a sub-post office, usually combined with the shop if there is one. The actual breakdown is shown in Table 4. The other two common commercial facilities available are a public house and a garage (see Table 5). No clear pattern relating the availability of these two items to size or location is evident, apart from the fact that the four large parishes always have one or more. Some garages also carry a limited stock of general items. (Two garages (in area 3) have shop units attached: one active, the other closed.) 5. Number of Parishes with Public House and/ or Garage.

Table

3

(1 of each and 1 combined)

Sub-post-office/stationers Hairdressers/barbers Fashion boutique (ladies) Fancy goods shops Cafes/restaurants also selling limited groceries Banks

Shop but no PO

Small parishes Large parishes

Pub

Garage

19 4

13 4

33

17

Use of Local Shops Related to Other Facilities

(Based on analyses of certain questions household surveys).

in the

The extent to which urban facilities are important for shopping is shown by the answers to the question “Where do you, as a household, most often buy the following goods?“. The results (see Table 6) show that Norwich supplies furniture to an equal number of households in both the survey areas, but for other items it is of rather greater importance

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

Table 6.

2/1978

113

Main Source of Goods (% of households)

Norwich

Groceries Hardware Clothes Furniture

14 21 56 56

Other towns

41 53 33 19

to area 2, which really forms part of its local catchment, i.e. it serves it as market town as well as regional centre. (A good proportion of furniture is obtained from major centres outside the County, included in “other sources”.) Overall, the message is clear - urban areas are important even for buying groceries, and certainly for hardware. For clothes and especially furniture, only a town is of any use, and so Norwich predominates: local shops have no role at all. These data reflect general comments on this topic by parish councils, who suggested that, for most people, a once-weekly or once-fortnightly shopping expedition to the nearest town is the usual pattern. This level of urban reliance by rural populations is generally well known and accepted in modern planning and commercial studies. Even for households where the local shop does not supply the main part of their groceries and other goods, it remains important, as is shown by the answers to the question “Do you use your local shop?” (see Table 7). Table

7.

Use of Local Shops (% of households)

Area 1 Level of use No local shop 13 Use frequently 44 Use occasionally 20 Use rarely/never 23 100%

Area 2 4 61 19 16 100%

Both areas 8 53 20 19 100%

Half of all the households questioned stated that they frequently use a local shop, despite high use of urban centres. This bears out comments made by parish councils that the use of existing local shops appears to have remained good over the last year or two (supposedly because of rising real transport costs). Use appears in fact rather lower in area 1

Local

Other

shops 36 17 3 1

sources ; 8 24

Total

100 100 100 100

than in area 2, perhaps because fewer households are within range of a local shop. One point discovered during the course of the surveys was that ‘local’ could mean different things to different people: although the ‘no shop’ entry was pre-defined for the sake of standard definition, and basically reflected the lack of any shop within the settlement being surveyed, a number of respondents claimed that the shop in the next village reached by foot, bicycle or even car was ‘local’. This is a valuable indication of how neighbouring villages may effectively share a shop located in one of them (or some other facility for that matter). The information about shop delivery patterns discussed later in this paper supports this view. Nonetheless, one-fifth of all households rarely or never use their local shop. What are their main reasons? Those cited were, as a proportion of total non-users (the relevant question allowed only one reason per household), as is shown in Table 8. The dominant reasons cited relate to the prices of the goods and to the fact that a member of the household makes some visits to a main centre anyway: the latter predominates in area 2 which is close to Norwich, while the question of prices is by far the most important issue in area 1 (which, to judge from the household survey results, has a distinctly lower average income than area 2). The average income of those households which rarely or never use the local shop, disaggregated by reason for non-use, is shown in Table 9. The most distinctive features are the very low average income of those who find access to local shops difficult (presumably elderly people for the most part) and the above-average incomes of those whose visits to other centres eliminates the need for use of local shops.

114

Geoforum/Volume

Table 8.

9/Number

2/1978

Main Reason for Households Rarely or Never Using Local Shop (%)

Prices too high

Area

1 2 Both

Need to travel elsewhere anyway so shop there

Limited stock choice/ range

42 20 31

21 15 18

9. Mean Declared Income of Households Rarely/Never Using Local Shop by Reason Stated for Non-use (f p.a.)

Reason stated

Area 1

Area 2

Both Areas

Prices too high Limited stock/ range/choice Need to travel elsewhere so shou there Difficult to reach Other

2210

2640

2340

2290

2980

2570

2500 1180 3500

3300 1410 1950

2970 1300 2350

Further light is thrown on the situation by considering the mean household income levels of the categories of local shop users and non-users (Table 10). Declared Mean Household 10. Relation to Use of Local Shop (f. p.a.)

Other (including personal)

Total

7 8 7

8 34 17

100% 100% 100%

22 33 27

Table

Table

Difficult to reach

Income

in

Area 1

Area 2

Both Areas

No shop Use frequently Use occasionally Use rarely/never

1740 1900 2060 2580

1430 2310 2420 3080

1660 2140 2240 2790

(All households)

(2 110)

(24101

(2260)

The first row of data in the table suggests that villages without a shop tend to have residents with very low average incomes. The two simple explanations that can be put forward are : ~~ (i) shops cannot survive in poor villages, or (ii) richer households move out of, or do not move into, villages without shops. Perhaps the real explanation is that trends over time have emphasised relative poverty of some communities. Looking at the declared incomes of households which have a

shop but rarely/never use it, it appears that it is the relatively wealthy who fall into this category, whereas the regular users have incomes about, or just under, the general household average for the survey areas. This suggests that local shops tend to be deprived of the support of those who could provide their best market, probably because such people can most easily afford the mobility to reach the wider choice of urban centres. local

Mobile grocery shop services were not effectively covered in the surveys of shops and facilities. Partly this is because they are elusive, except in the immediate locality, and thus information about them or comments from them are very hard to obtain, even though they are believed to cover about half the parishes. But in any case, use is extremely low, as is shown by the results of the question “Do you make use of any of the following mobile services?” (See Table 11) (roundsmen and mobile library are shown for comparison.) Table 11. Proportion Mobile Services (%)

Mobile Services Grocer Greengrocer Bread roundsman Milk roundsman (Mobile) Library (* Excludes

of Total

Area 1 4 9 20 90 14

Hingham,

Households

Area 2 3 3 48 92 *27

Using

Both Areas 3 5 58 91 *19

which has a branch

library)

Thus the mobile shop may find a viable market at selected times and places over a wide area; but in general it seems to play a very small role: perhaps because it carries even lower stocks than a village shop and cannot offer the vital facility of being always available.

The

detailed

results

show.

not

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

115

2/1978

surprisingly, that mobile grocers enjoy most use in parishes without shops; but mobile greengrocers have most custom in parishes with a shop, perhaps because they offer a specialist service.

Thus it can be concluded that the local post office would appear to offer an important service to the community.

Finally, how frequently are trips made to the various levels of shopping centre? Results of cross-analysing answers to the relevant questions are shown in Table 12.

In most villages, the current general-purpose shop represents a continuation of retail service that has existed for decades. In answer to Question 4 of the shops survey, varying periods were quoted with varying degrees of accuracy. To analyse these answers statistically would probably produce data of uncertain relevance. They may be summarised by stating that most premises now used as shops have been so since at least the 1940’s and often for over a century. The relatively few cases of new premises usually were stated to represent a move to a new site of an existing business. Many old premises have been extensively modernised over the decades.

Table 12. Frequency (Trips per month)

of Visits to Shopping Locations Norwich

Area 1 Area 2 Both Areas

1.9 3.7 3.7

Other towns Localshop and small market centres 4.9 3.5 4.4

10.1 9.8 9.9

These averages cover all persons making trips to shops, including those who do not use the local shop. They indicate that the local shop has high overall use in terms of visits, about 10 per month: allowing for non-users, many who do use it may go to it 3 or 4 times a week. Urban shops receive a total of 7 visits a month. Results for the two areas are almost identical. Trips to urban centres from area 2 are equally split between Norwich and other towns whereas 5 trips in area 1 are made to other towns for every 2 to Norwich, thereby bearing out the point made above that Norwich also functions as a market town for area 2.

Ownership

and History of Village Shops

It should be added that many premises have seen several uses and may have had a more specialised role in the past, e.g. the village shop may have once been a blacksmith’s or baker’s. For some villages, specialised shops and services (as still found in the four large villages) were available until post-World War II, but have generally gone since. This forms part of the overall trends of decline and change in small retailers that has been well documented nationally. The mean proprietors

length of time that the current have run the business is shown

Table ‘l3. Location of Post Offices Used (%)

Area 1 Area 2 Both areas

Norwich

Other towns and small market centres

Local

1 7 4

29 8 18

65 84 75

Two concluding statistics worth noting relate to the use of post offices. In answer to a set of questions about frequency and location of use of various miscellaneous facilities, 88 per cent of households (the proportion is identical for the two survey areas) stated they had used a post office within the last month: a far higher proportion than used any other facility. Location of the post office generally used is as shown in Table 13.

Elsewhere

Total

5 1 3

100 100 100

in Table 14 (answer

to Question

Table 14. Mean length in yr)

Small parishes Larger parishes All shops

2).

of shop ownership

(length

Both Areas

Area 1

Area 2

10.5 11.9 11.1

11 .o 8.5 10.1

9.8 14.6 11.2

116

Geoforum/Volume

Table 15. Proportion

Obtaining

2/1978

Business from (%) Other

Total

New start

Purchase

Family business

9 I3

71 4x

20 36

4

100 100

10

62

26

2

100

Small parishes Large parishes All shops

9/Number

Table 16. Probable Fate of Business on Closure (5%) Don’t know

Will be

Small parishes

17

69

Large parishes All shops

24 20

Table 17. Proportion

Small parishes Large parishes All shops

S&i

Will remain in family

Will close

3 16 8

11

100

7

100 100

:r:

of Shopkeepers

Total

by age range (5%)

17125

26145

46160

61/65

66+

Total

-~ _

31 28 30

43 52 47

17 8 13

9 12 10

100 100 100

Length of ownership actually covers a very wide range, from 2 weeks (at the time of survey) in one instance up to 40 or 50 years in several. Overall, shops in small parishes seem to have a slightly faster turnover of ownership. It is interesting to note that, while the average length of ownership for all shops is similar in both study areas, there appears to be a difference in character between types of parish. For small parishes, area I seems more settled than area 2, but the large parishes show exactly the reverse, the area 2 large parishes having almost twice the average length of ownership by shop proprietors. This reflects some general comments made: Hingham, as a static and perhaps traditional market centre, is Iooked on by nei~bou~ng parish councils as a good quality small shopping centre, but Mundesley, as a seaside resort, seems to have suffered from a fast turnover of people trying to make a living out of seasonal trade (Mundesley had at least three empty shops at the time of the survey).

these tend to be replacements in another building for a similar establishment recently closed.

even

In answer to Question 11 shopkeepers gave opinions about the likely future of their business (see Table 16). About three-fifths thought it likely that their business would be sold to carry on. One-tenth saw their business remaining in the family (most of these are in the large parishes, perhaps reffecting the fact that more shops in large parishes have already a family tradition), One-fifth could not commit themselves to an opinion, while a few thought that closure was likely. Obviously, this is a difficult question to answer, and, for most realistic shopkeepers, would have been answered with a mixture of hope and pessimism: answered, moreover, in the light of the current economic and administrative situation.

Most businesses have been acquired by purchase from the previous owner, as the answers to Question 3 show - see Table 15.

One other feature that concerns the future of the shop is the age pattern of the owners. Shopkeepers were asked to indicate their age range (Question lo), with the results as shown in Table 17.

This indicates that the family business is more likely to be found in larger parishes. Some businesses are started from scratch: though

People appear to move into ownership shop only towards middle-age, when

of a they

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

Table

18.

117

2/1978

Number of Workers per Shop by Category Proprietor/partner P-r FT 1.4 1.3 1.4

Small parishes Large parishes All shops Table

19.

0.3

Employee PT FT 0.1 0.4 0.2

Total (Taking PT = 55)

0.6 0.8 0.7

1.9 2.3 2.1

Goods Available in Shops in Small Parishes

Sold by at least two-thirds of all shops (in order of frequency) Confectionery Canned and packeted groceries Tobacco Bread and cakes Sold by at least half of all shops (in order of frequency) Greengrocery Dairy produce Frozen goods Stationery Other items sold by a few shops Kitchenware Tools Chemists’ wares (toiletries and permitted Fresh meat Gardening items Off-licence wines, spirits and beer Newspapers Drapery

have had time to acquire capital and experience or when they succeed an ageing relative in the family business. There would appear to be a distinctive concentration in the middle and upper age brackets. Further consideration is given below to the implications of this. Operations

and Services

The first question in the survey asked for the number of people employed in each category (Table 18). Hence the ‘average’ shop is run by 2 people, but with slightly higher manning of shops in the large parishes. This may reflect higher trade for shops in large parishes, which thus need and can afford more employees on average, both full-time (FT) and part-time (PT), whereas in small parishes the proprietor does most of the work himself, perhaps with the help of his wife. It is possible, though not certain, that the similar figures for the amount of manpower contributed by proprietors in small and large parishes is deceptive, in

pharmaceuticals)

that the small parish shopkeeper actually puts more time in, perhaps working on accounts and stocks in the evening, whereas his large parish competitor can cover such work during the day while his employees cope with trade. This was certainly the impression given in discussion during the survey follow-up. However, there is no proof, and no doubt all rural shopkeepers find their business rather exacting. Questions 5 and 6 covered the actual goods sold. Perhaps it is best here to deal firstly with the shops in the 40 small parishes, as these are generally homogeneous, whereas those in the large parishes are more specialised (as has already been indicated). Goods available may be grouped as shown in Table 19. The categorisation does not entirely indicate the width of stock sold, which may vary from shop to shop - for example, one shop may hold only a few packets of aspirins while

118

another has a very wide range of patent medicines; hence few shops actually included chemists’ wares as an item, though most appear to sell something. Canned goods may also include pet foods and baby foods, which some shopkeepers noted separately, but others did not, although having them in stock. Greengrocery stock is usually very limited. Kitchen and household goods often (but not always) appear to include a small supply of batteries (for torches, etc.), as well as a range of cooking foil? cleaning materials and similar items. Indeed, the small village general store appears to aim at a reasonable supply of basic goods. Hence there is no clear pattern of certain shops holding certain types of item and not others. In practice almost all shops hold goods in the first group of categories shown in Table 19. (The relationship of stocks and service is discussed later.) Some items do, however, remain specialised. Fresh meat tends to be the prerogative of a few butchers’ shops, or general shops with butchery sections, whose location is probably largely due to historical accident. These generally deliver to neighbouring parishes as well, and thus their catchment is wider than the immediate village. The same goes for newspapers: only 8 out of the 42 shops covered in small parishes sell them, and they operate a delivery service in a wide catchment area. Both these represent a form of area economy of scale and specialisation. Items of clothing are held by a few shops: 8 were recorded (out of 42), all bar one being traditional village PO/Stores. (Although every shop holds a limited stock of ladies’ tights again, a “basic” item.) Of the 42 shops, 9 hold a licence for sales of alcoholic drinks (for consumption off the premises), and one more was on the point of doing so when the survey was conducted: only 3 of these are in villages where the pub has remained open (although in 2 further cases a closed pub is now being re-opened). No small parish possessed a chemists’ shop. This is an example of specialisation involving cost, because it requires employment of a qualified pha~acist. One shop-owner, an active local businessman and councillor in a parish campaigning for a local clinic, said that he had studied conversion of a spare unit attached to his shop for this

Geoforum/Volume

purpose, but the annual prohibitively expensive,

9/Number

cost

would

2/1978

prove

The general picture is somewhat different in the larger parishes. Here specialisation means that there is less of a tendency for all shops to sell all goods: for example, the grocery shops sell very little in the way of non-food goods because the hardware shops have a very good range, and specialist bakers as well as butchers exist in Mundesley, Mattishall and Hingham. (The bakers do not now deliver, their rounds having been bought out by the national combines, who deliver throughout the County.) Some local variations are to be noted. In Bacton and Mundesley only one grocery store has an off-licence, perhaps because there is a separate off-licence shop, whereas in Mattishall and Hingham several shops have off-licences. Newspapers are sold only by one store in Mattishall, and in Hingham by a separate newsagents, but in Mundesley and Bacton at least 3 shops, and several caf~/restaurants in addition, sell them; probably because in a market centre with a fixed clientele it would seem pointless and unprofitable for more than one shop to hold stocks against chance purchases, whereas casual purchases are frequent enough to be good business in the two seaside resorts in the holiday season. Questions 7 and 8 of the survey asked about delivery of goods. The answers may be summarised as is shown in Table 20. Discussion with shopkeepers and other local contacts complenlented these data, the general pattern suggested being one of partial specialisation, with some shops covering several parishes and others not delivering at all. Usually, the other parishes covered are those which have no effective shop. It will be seen that rather more shops in large parishes deliver widely than do those in small parishes, perhaps because the former are acting as market centres, hence a greater need to give a service over a wide catchment. This reinforces the picture of a hierarchy, though not one with distinctive differences. Where do goods come from? Warehouses form the main source, to judge from the answers to Question 9, though in fact three types may

~eoforum/Volume

9lNumber

Table

20.

119

2/l 978

Proportion

Small parishes Large parishes All shops

of Shops who Deliver Goods (%)

Deliver in Deliver only in their several

Did deliver but do not now

parishes own parish 26 26 20 36 23 30

do so 11 12 12

be distinguished : independent warehouse firms who deliver goods, independent warehouses operated on a cash and carry basis, and warehouses supplying shops belonging to wholesale groups (BOB: MACE, SPAR, DAVY LINE). In additron, local sources and direct supply from manufacturers supply some of the goods. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they used various sources, and for the purpose of analysis a crude scoring system was used, being Very often/frequently Sometimes Rarely/never

= 2 = = :,

The scores of each source were added up, and on this basis the relative ordering of the sources overall (and ‘points’ scored) is as shown in Table 2 1. Table

21.

Sources

of Goods in Order of Estimated

Importance Small parishes Cash and Carry Wholesale Groups Local Sources Independent Warehouses Direct from manufacturers

(42) ii;; (2 1) (15)

Large parishes Cash and Carry (24) Wholesale Groups Independent Warehouses 1 (l 8, Direct from manufacturers (17) Locat Sources (16)

Total

35

{E] (39) (38) (32)

Caution is needed in the interpretation of this analysis, which is rather crude. However,

100 100 100

the main indication, i.e. the importance of cash and carry warehouses and of wholesale groups, compared to other sources, is probably sound. It must also be borne in mind that frequency of use does not relate to quantity of goods obtained. For example, although local sources are regularly used to a reasonable extent, they probably supply only greengrocery, which, as mentioned, is usually sold in small quantities in general shops. Some goods can be obtained only from one or two sources: meat, for example, usually comes from the warehouses of meat supply firms (very rarely do local farms supply directly). Most shopkeepers use more than one source of supply: this prevents their being tied, with the danger of not being able to supply what their customers want or having to pay a high wholesale price. Some shops belonging to wholesale groups do in fact feel that their commitment does have some disadvantages which offset the bulk buying advantages of the group system. The groups are felt to impose, or at least recommend, local marketing and operating policies which may be apt for urban shops but are quite inappropriate in a village.* Hence, although the group system is obviously appreciated and used quite widely, there may be limits on the potential for developing any effective rural policy through its use; there are, in any case, several competing groups. The ‘cash and carry’ warehouses are particularly useful in that stocks can be replenished in small quantities at short notice, hence * For example, shopkeepers

AI1 shops Cash and Carry Wholesale Groups Independent Warehouses Local Sources Direct from manufacturers

Have

never delivered -:;

in one group, meeting to discuss security, were advised by the group executive responsible to take all cases of shoplifting, however minor, to the police at once: but in a village situation shopkeepers feel they can stop most wrongdoers merely by catching them, the threat of exposure in a small community being sufficient, whereas reporting minor cases to the police would create local antagonism that could damage business.

120

enabling shops to maintain for their customers.

Geoforum/Volume

a reliable

service

Actual sales apart, local shops do give various services to customers and two in particular. Discussions with parish councils and with shopkeepers themselves have suggested that, while opening times cover normal shop hours, which is of use to most villagers, items can sometimes be obtained at other hours in cases of urgent need: some more active shopkeepers open one or two evenings and/or Sunday mornings, while more traditional shopkeepers can often be contacted outside hours by villagers. (Regularly opening outside conventional hours was not felt to be of much use: one shopkeepers, clerk to his parish council, had tried it for some months, with no effect.) And most shopkeepers will accept or change cheques for customers known personally to them; this is of value to the shopkeeper too, as it much improves his security, a clip of endorsed cheyues being far safer to keep on the premises and take to the bank once a week than a large sum of money. A number of shops are also joint with subpost offices (as already analysed). Undoubtedly the combination helps bring a more economic operation. That the post office section does cont~bute something is shown by the fact that several of the sub-post offices which are not combined with shops have been in the past, i.e. the owners have felt it worth retaining the post office element when the shop closed. It is not perhaps heavily beneficial: the Post Office Cor~~oration are currently finding it difficult to obtain new subpost masters/mistresses in some rural areas to replace those retiring, In discussion, several shopkeepers and parish councils did suggest that, whereas formerly people who collected allowances or drew out their week’s housekeeping at the post office counter wouid then spend it in the shop, today many people use the post office but then go into towns to shop. But the combined facility is probably still of some value to the shopkeeper. Finally, a more nebulous but still ilnportal~t question: how far do village shopkeepers feel they have a role in the community that exceeds their direct economic function? This is difficult to judge; there may be scope here for an expert sociological study. But a good number of shopkeepers met during the sur-

9/Number

2/1978

vey, as well as several parish councils, suggested that being an involved member of the community is essential in order to run a village shop, because good service and hence a good level of custom can only be based on real knowledge of c~lstomers, rather than mere politeness. The impression was gained that successful shopkeepers are well-known to parish councils and other local organisations, and indeed are often active on them. This means that survival of the local shop relates to personality rather than merely to catchment size: hence the wide range of sizes in the earlier analysis of this item (see Table 3). Issues and Opinions

Questions 12 and 13 asked the shopkeepers what action they would like to see public authorities take and what other comments they had to make; this produced assorted comments! In addition, discussion with shopkeepers, with parish councils and with others in the survey areas has yielded some further valuable points. This section summarises the main issues raised by these sources. Two proposals were made by a number of shopkeepers. About a quarter of all proprietors responding considered that some form of rate relief should be given, it being suggested that current rates are unfair in relation to domestic rates, and a heavy burden on small shopkeepers. New extra rates for waste removal seemed to be a particular complaint at the time of the survey. It was suggested that, if County and district authorities were interested in keeping rural shops open, with whatever this might imply for rural location policy directly, they might well look to this as an immediate issue. A number of parish councils supported this viewpoint. The other item of particular attention is Value Added Tax (VAT). About one-fifth of all shopkeepers raised this issue. Only two actually suggested cutting it out altogether (and they made no proposals as to its rel~lac~ment) but most who commented on it thought that it should be simplified. with one rate only and less complex administration. While Government departments and large supermarket groups can handle any extra work without significantly altering their own large overheads. the small shop-

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

121

2/1978

keepers who raised the item consider it a time-consuming and worrying problem - it is stated to add significantly to their workload. Indeed, most official regulations, including current price restraint rules, are looked on in this light: easy for the imposing official and large groups, but costly for the small shopkeeper and likely to make survival in the business more difficult, which in turn will lessen service to the villager by helping cut out the shop rather than improve it. The main general comment made, by parish councils as well as by shopkeepers, was in contrast to this, namely that there is not much that government or local authorities can do to help the small shopkeeper. Examples were given of shops formerly doing poor business which had increased trade simply because a new proprietor gave a better service in one or more respects: wider stock, deliveries, quicker ordering, redecorating the shop and re-organising layout, personal attention. Examples of the reverse situation, where a good shop had been allowed to decline to closure, were also indicated. A number of shopkeepers stressed that they cannot compete with large urban shops on they are limited in the cut-price prices: offers they can make, and indeed too attractive a cut-price offer means that people may come in specifically to buy that particular item but still go elsewhere for other items, except for the ‘captive’ shoppers (mainly old people and some housewives from poorer families) who would come in anyway. A few mentioned the problem of competition due to easy access to urban shopping, and suggested that hypermarket developments should not be allowed (two even felt that public transport should be cut!). Again, these views tend to be supported at the parish council level. The emphasis on service means the provision of a reasonable selection of goods, as well as premises that have enough space and equipment to keep the stock coupled with the attractive environment that the modern consumer, rural as well as urban, has come to expect. The wide variety of basic items, quickly replenished at ‘cash and carry’ warehouses, as discussed in the previous section, illustrates this. But to acquire and maintain premises and stock calls for sufficient capital

funds. Generally shopkeepers seek to maintain and preferably improve both, perhaps thus reducing their current income in order to plough back profits into the business. This does enable them to build some form of capital for retirement, which they appear happy to do at the expense of current income, provided they are able to play a role in the community and be sure of recouping the capital they put in. The problem arises at the point of sale; potential newcomers may not be able to afford to buy a business at its real value, and thus it either closes down or sells at below the acceptable rate. Thus, a loss of confidence may occur if not a loss of a shop. The growing real capital expense of moving into the trade appears to be the real financial problem: making a profit in it is obviously important, but less relevant to the future. The same difficulty besets village pubs and local bus companies, both of which have also closed down in considerable numbers over recent years. Those who can afford to buy in are likely to be older, because they have had the chance to accumulate the necessary capital; two or three of the newly arrived proprietors encountered during the survey had sold up small urban businesses to buy a village shop as a form of semi-retirement. The large proportion of shopkeepers in higher age groups (analysed earlier) illustrates the extent to which village shops are run by people who have acquired a shop this way or who have built up capital by running the shop for decades. This large proportion of older shopkeepers, both existing and potential, means that rural areas face a possible situation of shops coming onto the market more frequently and perhaps not selling because the likely income will not show a return on capital without heroic efforts by their owners. Capital gains taxes are also proving a problem in this context. Evidently, this situation poses indefinable but very real problems for future planning in rural areas. Changes - Gimingham

and Hardingham

During the period of the fieldwork and shops surveys, mid-1975 to mid-1976, a number of changes occurred in local facilities, indicative of the dynamism still present in the supply of rural commercial facilities. Two of the surviving public houses closed, the owners

122

giving

up their lease on reaching retirement age and no new tenants appearing with capital: both have since re-opened (one under private ownership) but are now aimed at the Norwich leisure market, both being very close to the city. Another public house re-opened under private ownership after long closure. About half-a-dozen shops changed hands and five closed down, the owners reaching retirement age in most cases. The five shop closures are indicative. Only one occurred in area 2, in Hingham: thus there was no significant loss to any community. In area 1, a closure took place in both Mundesley and Bacton. In Mundesley, this added one to the existing two empty shop premises, which is rather ironic as the local planning authority were designing a precinct of new shops; the Bacton closure invoived the owner of a general food store opening a cafe instead, the former premises becoming a newsagents. In Honing, one of the two food shops closed, after what is believed to have been several changes of ownership in recent years, the village pub having also closed not long before; in contrast, the other shop and the separate sub-post office (which had never been a shop) had both been in their current owners’ hands for many years. The closure in Gimingham is perhaps of most interest. There the local shopkeeper closed his shop/sub-post office on retirement in spring 1976, on reaching retirement age; preferring not to move, he converted his shop to form part of his home. This left the viflage with no fixed facilities, and no suitable premises either, had a prospective new shopkeeper/sub-post master wished to set up in business there. In character the village is fairly heavily orientated towards agriculture (over one-third of the local working population were directly employed in it at the 1971 Census); the population (388 in 1971) is static or slowly declining; there is an above-average proportion of retired people (local rather than incomers); and car ownership is below average for the area. In simple terms, it may be classified as a poor traditional Norfolk village. Furthermore, the regular bus service to Mundesley and North Walsham (and Norwich), six buses a day, passes through a cross-roads half-a-mile or more from the main part of the village (which is quite scattered a~yway)~ a free shoppers’ bus to

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

2/l 978

Cromer from the village operates only once a week. Closure of the shop thus brought a new dimension of hardship, especially to local pensioners, few of whom own cars. The parish council (one of the more alive and cohesive ones in the area) pressed the North Norfolk District Council for a solution to this problem. A villager agreed to take on the duties of sub-post mistress; being tenant of a council house, from which no trading acfivities are normally allowed, this in theory was not permissible, but the District Council waived the restriction in this case in order to allow the villagers to obtain pensions and allowances and to carry out the many financial and official transactions that post offices handle. Subseque~~y the Council’s planning officer redesigned a small group of new council houses planned for construction in the village to include a shop unit, with the intention that the unit would be offered to a tenant wishing to run a local shop; the Council had already built and successfully Ieased such a unit in another village under similar conditions. This unit was under development at the time of completing this paper. A shop/PO that closed subsequ~~tIy reached the national news. Hardingham~ whose pub had been turned into an antique shop before 1975, lost its shop/PO in early 1977: these losses were among features discussed in a series of articles on the village in “The Times” late in August 1977. A village of poorer, more tradltion~ly rural character similar to that of Gimingham, Hardingham once had a halt on the railway line linking Dereham to Wymondham and Norwich (admittedly the line is located some distance from the main village). Passenger services ceased in the late 1960s: today the village has a weekly market bus to Dereham (on Fridays), and another to Norwich (on Saturday) started only in 1976 on an experimental basis. There is no usable public transport link to Hingham, 2 miles distant. ~ardingham clearly illustrates a point of some general relevance suggested by other analysis during the research: villages that are poor enough to lose their shop are also more likely to lose public transport and other facilities as well, and thus it is less likely that, for example, the bus service will remain to compensate for the loss of the shop.

~eoforum/Volume

Conclusions

9/~umber

211978

- The Scope for Policy Changes

The development of the village shop over the last two or three decades has reflected economic and social trends in general. Growth in mobility and in material resources available, in parallel with economic growth, has left the village shop with less custom and less customers tied to it, and a greater expectation by local people for a wider range of goods. Since the local shop cannot compete, in terms of prices or range of goods, with the large urban facilities that have become the main source of goods for most people, it must compete by a policy of personal attention, reliability and offering such other useful services as are feasible. As wide a range of goods as is possible for small turnover, combined with a limited number of special offers, are sought by more lively shopkeepers, although this attempt to mirror the larger outlet is perhaps a secondary element. The village shop is, to some measure, trying to do two jobs - cater for a less-well-off captive minority of households for whom some social responsibility will be felt, and also attract the more mobile households in the face of large cheap competition. In this, its current role is not unlike that of the public transport operator. Entry into the trade demands much greater capital now, perhaps allied to higher risk. A village shop is socially integrated into its community to a far greater extent than large or specialist retail units, probably because its market lies among a small group of people with a common physical location and often some common identity: though traditional Norfolk villages are not the cohesive communities that popular myth and urban planners think they are. Operating conditions differ markedly from urban retail operations. The existence or lack of a shop, or the condition of existing shops, stem as much from the personality of the shopkeepers, both past and present, the village itself, an,d from wider external forces. Should public authorities act to maintain village shops as far as possible? Evidently this depends on each authority’s attitude towards rural areas. Interest in rural communities and pressure to maintain their facilities has grown substantially in the last

123

few years in Britain, despite (or because of?) the country’s heavily urbanised character; government bodies and local authorities have expressed concern over the plight of rural inhabitants. Thus it may be assumed that most authorities do wish to maintain the village shop if they can reasonably do so. What scope is there for their doing so in the face of on-going change? What policies are relevant? The findings of this paper suggest that personal and local issues play too heavy a role for “directive” measures to be of any use. This especially concerns the muchdiscussed “key village” policy, which emphasises the role of the larger centres. In the two study areas as an example, the Norfolk County Draft Structure Plan (of 1977) designates Hingham, Mattishall and Mundesley as “village service centres”, on which all public investment is to be conten trated and private facilities investment encouraged; this would aid shops directly available, without travel, to 4,300 people out of 18,700, under a quarter of the areas’ population, while possibly worsening the situation of the other 11,500 people who do have a local shop. In the Plan it is stated that public transport will be developed to aid mobility from surrounding villages both to village service centres and main towns. However, restraints on public expenditure mean that the County Council is in practice not stopping the decline of the rural bus network, which is in any case very thin, completely omitting 4 parishes in the study areas, giving a once or twice weekly service to another 9 parishes, and missing the main ten tre of some supposedly well-served parishes (e.g. Gimingham).

Other general policies seem unlikely to improve matters for smaller village shops. Simplification of VAT or reduction of rates for commercial premises - the two items which shopkeepers most asked for -- would benefit all shops, urban as much as rural, if applied throughout. These policies would involve, respectively, loss of control over VAT records and the need for higher domestic rates, and thus it is highly unlikely that either would be seen as acceptable in Britain today: and if they were implemented, while they would probably leave slightly more shops in existence, it would not necessarily be those

Geoforum/Volume

124

located security.

in villages

that

would

gain

more

Policies on village shops must, therefore, be “enabling”, and they must also be largely local or specific; indeed, they may need to be parochial in the most literal sense. Aid on capital and running costs of buildings is perhaps the point where interests of a specific community can be tied in with the interests of a local entrepreneur, actual or intending. Three approaches come to mind : 1. Give rate relief on commercial premises in specific categories (County or district council). 2. Provide a shop unit for lease (as North Norfolk District Council have done with success) (County or district council). 3. Give some form of grant aid or tax relief (a system already used widely throughout Britain and Europe in many areas of social and economic policy, such as transport, hotels, leisure and health centres, etc.) (Central government). For all of these, the type of village and recipient would need to be clearly categorised. This needs to be done equitably: most parish councils met in the discussions stressed that any attempt to aid one shop in a village and not another (or the shop in one village but not in an adjoining one) would be wrong because it was unfair. This view, expressed by the local authorities at grass roots level, seems reasonable. Establishing sensible categories has rarely proved a serious problem in the various areas where grant aid is available from public ftmds. It might be most suitable for the outline principles to be established by central government but for County, or even district councils, to give the level and type of support that seem most suitable for their particular area (similar to the Transport Policies and Programmes system established for local transport development). County and district councils can also further their policies through sensible operation of their planning and development control fuilctiol~s, as many of them already do. This can make a contribution towards creating the right environment, but it is likely to be limited, even where blanket policies such as the key settlement approach give way to more sensitive local concern. Development control can stop lly~~~r~llarkets being opened on

9/Number

Z/1978

green-field sites, but it is much harder to justify opposition to a small supermarket or group of shops in a country town. And allowing construction of some extra houses in each of a number of villages will not guarantee survival (or revival) of a village shop. As this paper has shown, local and personal factors count for too much, and in any case the situation remains one of continuing dynamism. There does remain a need for research and analysis, as a guide to continuing development of policies. But policy implementation for village shops needs to deal with people and communities in local detail. For example, the ‘“key villages” concept is useful as an analyst’s framework for setting out existing patterns in summary form, but it is meaningless for policy definition, as the interrelationships of people and shops at local level the level experienced by the shopkeepers and users, where their actions and lifestyle are determined ~~ is in reality far too complex to be dealt with so easily; as some public authorities at district level and below are coming to real&. Thus, studies leading towards policy development require a substantial element of local surveys, and indeed grass roots involvement, so as to create a real lInderstanding, which will be of help to local aLlthorities if they are to sensitively “manage” shop provision in villages rather more effectively than has generally been the case. Strategic planning might best aim at building the administrative environment within which this approach may be taken. It is hoped that the surveys reported in this paper give some indication of what is possible. Acknowledgements - I would like to thank the Department of the Environment and Dr Malcolm Moseley of the University of East Anglia for allowing use in this paper of Illaterial from the liEA rural transport and accessibility project sponsored by the Department. Grateful thanks are also due to a number of colleagues and acquaintances, too many to list individually, who kindly read and commented on an earlier draft. I remain solely responsible for the paper; the opinions expressed in it are my own and do not necessarily refiect those of the Department of the Environment nor of the University of East Anglia (nor, for that matter. of Hertfordshirc County Council). Sincere appreciation should also be expressed to Gwen Hughes and Rose Kenyon for typing various drafts and to Gillian Harrrian for drawing the figures.

Geoforum/Volume

9/Number

125

2/l 978

References BATES, P. (1976) The Independent Grocery Retailer, Retail Outlets Research Unit, Manchester Business School. Research Report 23. COUNTRYSIDE REVIEW COMMITTEE (1977) Rural Communities - A Discussion Paper HMSO, London. HARMAN, R. G. (1977) Transport and facilities in rural areas - the scope for change. Paper given to conference Appropriate Technology and Institutional Change. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

received will be treated in strict confidence and our findings will be presented in a way that conceals the circumstances of individual shopkeepers. We enclose a stamped addressed envelope for return of the completed questionnaire.

Appendix Rural Transport and Accessibility University of East Anglia

KIRBY, D. A. (1974) The decline and fall of the smaller retail outlet: A geographical study Retail D&rib. Mgmt. 2, KIRBY, D. A. (1975) The Small Shop in Britain, Tn.Ctry.Plann., 43,496-500. MOSELEY, M. J., HARMAN, R. G., COLES, 0. B. and SPENCER, M. B. (1977) Rural Transport and Accessibility (2 Volumes) Centre of East Anglian Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (1977) Norfolk Structure Plan - Written Statement Report of Survey & Studies (2 Volumes) NCC, Norwich.

Project

March 1976 Survey of selected shops in rural Norfolk Dear Sir or Madam, As you may be aware, we are currently studying the role of transport and of access to facilities in rural areas, as an aid to more effective planning by local authorities. We have already carried out some surveys in your part of Norfolk, including a household survey in which we asked a number of people to tell us about their family, their travel and shopping habits and their opinions on some questions: we have thus obtained, we hope, some idea of the customer’s point of view. We would now like to find out a little about the local shopkeepers who play an important role in rural areas, and we therefore ask you if you would be kind enough to take part in a survey. All we would like is for you to complete and return the attached questionnaire. As you will see, it asks for information on a few simple matters, and also seeks your opinions on a couple of topics. All answers

REF.No. SURVEY OF SELECTED SHOPS IN RURAL NORFOLK

We know that completion of government and other returns absorbs a good deal of your time, but we would be grateful if you could complete this form it should not take more than five minutes. It would greatly help the work we are doing to have a good number of answers from people like yourself, as, when all is said and done, you are in the business and we are not. Information on your activities and your viewpoint would therefore be of real value to us. If you have any queries or comments, please do not hesitate to write, or, better, telephone me here (on extension 2666). I shall look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much for your co-operation. Yours faithfully, R. G. Harman Team Leader This appendix survey.

is a reduced

2. How long have you been this shop?

version

of the original

the proprietor(s)

of

Name and address of establishment

3. Did you (a) start it up yourself? (b)purchase it as a going concern from a previous owner? (c)obtain it (by deed or sale) from a close relative? (d) obtain it otherwise?

Name of proprietor(s)

4. If you did not start up the shop yourself, you say how long it has been in existence?

(All information

will be treated in confidence)

5. Do you regularly sell the following items? 1. How many people work regularly (including yourself)?

at this shop

Greengrocery Fresh meat

could

Geoforum/Volume

126

Bread and cakes Dairy produce Canned and packeted foods Frozen foods Tobacco and cigarettes Newspapers and journals Stationery Kitchenware Tools, decorating materials Gardening supplies 6. Do you sell anything categories? If so, what is it?

not included

2/1978

9. To what extent do you obtain your goods from Wholesale groups (BOB/MACE/SPAR)? Cash and carry warehouses? Direct from manufacturers? Local sources (Farms, etc.)? Other sources? 10. As problems sometimes arise when a proprietor retires, would you please indicate your approximate age.

in the above

11. What do you think would happen to your shop if you were to give up running it now? 12. What action would you like to see taken by public authorities to make it easier for rural shops like yours to serve your customers effectively?

7. Do you deliver orders ~ in and around your village? in other areas? 8, If you do not now deliver regularly, done so from this shop in the past?

9/Number

have you

13. Are there any other comments make?

you would like to