New electoral arrangements for County Council Draft Recommendations September 2020

Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at:

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Norfolk? 2 Our proposals for Norfolk 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Councillor allocation and coterminosity 6 Division boundaries consultation 7 Draft recommendations 8 Breckland 9 15 19 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 23 28 33 37 Conclusions 40 Summary of electoral arrangements 41 Parish electoral arrangements 41 Have your say 45 Equalities 49 Appendices 51 Appendix A 51 Draft recommendations for Norfolk County Council 51 Appendix B 58 Outline map 58 Appendix C 61

Submissions received 61 Appendix D 63 Glossary and abbreviations 63

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Norfolk?

7 We are conducting a review of Norfolk County Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in the Council’s elections varies depending on where you live in Norfolk. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The divisions in Norfolk are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the county.

Our proposals for Norfolk

9 Norfolk should be represented by 84 councillors, the same number as there are now.

10 Norfolk should have 84 divisions, the same number as there are now.

11 The boundaries of most divisions should change; 10 will stay the same.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your division name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the county or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 15 September 2020 to 23 November 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed divisions as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new divisions to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 23 November 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 45 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Norfolk. We then held a period of consultation with the public on division patterns for the county. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

17 September 2019 Number of councillors decided 24 September 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new divisions End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 24 March 2020 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 15 September 2020 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 23 November 2020 forming final recommendations 11 May 2021 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our divisions.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create divisions with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2020 2025 Electorate of Norfolk 699,604 744,073 Number of councillors 84 84 Average number of electors per 8,329 8,858 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a division is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the division as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed divisions for Norfolk will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 6.3% by 2025.

25 During the first consultation on the division patterns, we received a representation from South Norfolk District Council which cited concerns about the electorate forecasts used as the basis for the electoral review. The District Council

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

argued that significant developments up to 2025 had been omitted from the forecast electorate figures for South Norfolk.

26 In light of this information, we looked again at the figures provided and identified that the methodology provided by Norfolk County Council incorporated housing developments only up to the year 2023, although they had provided raw data up to 2025. The Council had explained that this was done to control against an optimism bias. However, the evidence from South Norfolk was sufficiently persuasive for us to ask Norfolk County Council to revisit the methodological constraint and produce new figures that reflected development work beyond 2023.

27 We asked for these figures to be provided to us by early February 2020 and consequently we extended the consultation until 24 March 2020 to ensure interested parties could make submissions based on the updated figures.

28 We are now satisfied that the information provided by the Council is the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

29 Norfolk County Council currently has 84 councillors. The Council proposed retaining a council size of 84. The Liberal Democrat Group on the Council and Councillor Kemp, an independent councillor, also proposed retaining the existing council size. All three submissions strongly suggested that the Commission maintain a pattern of single-member divisions, with the Executive Leader of the Council informing us that the Council passed a resolution to request the Commission conduct a single-councillor review.

30 We looked at all the evidence provided and concluded that a council size of 84 would ensure the Council could carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively, while also ensuring a good allocation of councillors between the constituent districts.

31 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of divisions that would be made up of 84 councillors representing 84 single-councillor divisions.

Councillor allocation and coterminosity

32 A council size of 84 provides the following allocation between the district councils in the county. We have also listed the percentage of district wards that are wholly contained within our proposed divisions. We refer to this as coterminosity.

6

Allocation of Authority Coterminosity councillors Breckland4 12 59% Broadland5 13 66% Great Yarmouth6 9 47% King’s Lynn & West Norfolk7 14 55% North Norfolk8 10 81% Norwich9 13 92% South Norfolk10 13 54%

Division boundaries consultation

33 We received 70 submissions in response to our consultation on division boundaries. These included county-wide proposals from Norfolk County Council, the Liberal Democrat Group and Labour Group. For the district of North Norfolk, we also received a proposal from North Norfolk District Council. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for division arrangements in particular areas of the county.

34 Norfolk County Council requested that we draw up a pattern based solely on single-councillor divisions. We have sought to reflect this request in the draft recommendations. We will only move away from this pattern of single-councillor divisions should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern will better reflect our statutory criteria.

35 Our draft recommendations also take into account local evidence we received during the first consultation period. These submissions provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas, we considered that the proposals for division arrangements did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries. We have based our draft recommendations on a mixture of the proposals from all the schemes received and a number of other local comments, as well as including some of our own amendments.

36 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 outbreak, there was a detailed virtual tour of Norfolk. This helped to clarify issues

4 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for Council. 5 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for Broadland District Council. 6 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for Great Yarmouth Borough Council. 7 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. 8 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for North Norfolk District Council. 9 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for Norwich City Council. 10 Coterminosity based on the final recommendations for South Norfolk District Council.

7

raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of the proposed draft boundary recommendations. Draft recommendations 37 Our draft recommendations are for 84 single-councillor divisions. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

38 The tables and maps on pages 9–40 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Norfolk. They detail how the proposed division arrangements reflect the three statutory11 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

39 A summary of our proposed new divisions is set out in the table starting on page 51 and on the large map accompanying this report.

40 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the division boundaries, and the names of our proposed divisions.

11 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

8

Breckland

9

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 1 1 6% 2 North & Scarning 1 -7% 3 Dereham South 1 9% 4 Elmham & Mattishall 1 -6% 5 Guiltcross 1 10% 6 Launditch 1 1% 7 1 2% 8 The Brecks 1 -1% 9 East 1 5% 10 Thetford West 1 4% 11 Watton 1 9% 12 Yare & Necton 1 9%

Whole District 41 We received three proposals for the whole of Breckland District from Norfolk County Council, Norfolk County Council (‘NCC’) Labour Group and NCC Liberal Democrats. All three proposals were for 12 single-councillor divisions.

Dereham North & Scarning and Dereham South 42 The Council proposed that the existing Dereham North and Dereham South divisions be retained, with Dereham North division being renamed Dereham North & Scarning to recognise the substantial part of the division represented by that parish.

43 The Liberal Democrats proposed two divisions of Dereham North and Dereham South. Their proposal divided the existing Dereham South division in half using the railway line, Yaxham, and Swaffham Roads and the High Street as the boundary between the two divisions. They proposed to include the parish of Scarning in a Dereham South division. The Labour Group proposed a similar pattern to the existing divisions but revised the boundary between the two divisions to provide better electoral equality. Their proposed revised boundary ran along the A47, Yaxham and London roads and the High Street. The Group proposed to run their boundary around the back of properties rather than along the centre of the road.

44 Having considered the three different division patterns, our draft recommendations maintain the existing divisions as proposed by the Council. We also propose to rename Dereham North division to Dereham North & Scarning. We have not been persuaded that the division patterns submitted by either the Labour Group or Liberal Democrats reflect the community identity of the electors in the centre of Dereham, particularly by using the narrow High Street as the boundary between the two divisions, although we do note its use as a district council ward boundary.

10

45 In the light of a lack of compelling evidence accompanying the proposed division patterns received during the initial consultation, we are particularly interested to hear local views regarding the appropriateness of using the High Street as a boundary.

Elmham & Mattishall, Launditch and Swaffham 46 The existing Elmham & Mattishall division has poor electoral equality and the Council proposed to move Hoe and Swanton Morley parishes to Launditch division and add Yaxham parish to Elmham & Mattishall. The Labour Group also proposed to move the parishes of Hoe and Swanton Morley to the neighbouring Launditch division, while the Liberal Democrats proposed to redraw the existing division to exclude the Mattishall area and rename the division to Swanton Morley.

47 The Council proposed to remove Necton parish and include it in a Yare & Necton division. It also proposed to include Newton by Castle Acre parish in Launditch division. The Liberal Democrats proposed to extend the existing Launditch division to include Narborough parish and rename it Necton & Narborough. The Labour Group proposed to maintain the existing division, with the addition of Newton by Castle Acre parish.

48 In Swaffham, the Council proposed to add Beachamwell parish, while the Labour Group proposed that it remain in The Brecks division. The Liberal Democrats proposed that Swaffham form the northernmost parish of a Swaffham division that also included the northern half of the existing The Brecks division.

49 Having considered the various division patterns in this area, we are proposing the divisions of Elmham & Mattishall, Launditch and Swaffham as suggested by the Council. We consider that this pattern of divisions best reflects our statutory criteria in the area. We were convinced by the Council’s argument that Yaxham shared community ties with Mattishall parish and that it would be appropriate to include it in Elmham & Mattishall division. We also agree that Beachamwell looks towards Swaffham and should be included in that division.

50 We are also of the view that to provide good electoral equality for this pattern of divisions, Necton should not be included in Launditch division, to be discussed further below (paragraphs 52–54). We do not consider we have received sufficient evidence from the Liberal Democrats to support their more comprehensive redrawing of the existing division patterns in this area. We propose to include Brisley parish in Launditch division to reflect the views of that parish.

51 Our draft recommendations for the area are therefore for an Elmham & Mattishall division that includes Yaxham parish; a Launditch division that includes

11

Brisley, Hoe, Newton by Castle Acre and Swanton Morley parishes but does not include Necton parish; and a Swaffham division that includes Beachamwell parish.

The Brecks, Watton and Yare & Necton 52 The Council and Labour Group put forward similar proposals for these divisions. The Liberal Democrats’ proposal was substantially different. The Council and Labour Group both proposed a division called The Brecks similar to the existing division. The Council’s proposal for the division no longer included the parishes of Beachamwell, Croxton or Holme Hale, but did include Rocklands and Snetterton parishes. The Labour Group proposed a division that did not include Ashill parish but added Caston parish and the parishes that straddle the A11 from Thetford to Attleborough. Given our decisions for the north of the district, discussed above, we are unable to adopt the divisions proposed by the Liberal Democrats in this part of the district and provide a coherent division pattern. The Liberal Democrats had proposed that the existing The Brecks division be divided into a Swaffham division and a Weeting & Ellingham division.

53 The Council’s proposed Yare & Necton division is based on the existing Yare & All Saints division, with the parishes of Holme Hale, Necton and Ovington added and Yaxham removed. The Council proposed to name the division Yare & Necton to recognise that Necton provides a quarter of the electors in the division. It proposed a Watton division that included Carbrooke, Caston and Griston parishes alongside Watton parish; all three parishes look towards Watton according to the Council’s evidence. The Labour Group did not propose to include Necton in their Yare & All Saints division, retaining Ashill and Rocklands in the division instead. The Group’s Watton division included Ovington parish but not Caston parish. Necton Parish Council proposed that the name of Necton be retained within the name of whichever division contained the parish.

54 Having considered the evidence submitted we are proposing a division pattern based on the proposal from the Council. We consider that this proposal was backed by the most convincing evidence and reflects all three of our statutory criteria for these divisions.

Attleborough and Guiltcross 55 The current Attleborough division, which includes Besthorpe parish, is forecast to have very poor electoral equality by 2025 due to considerable housing development to the south of the town. Given Besthorpe parish’s lack of access to any other parish in the district other than Attleborough, we are of the view that it is appropriate to maintain it in an Attleborough division. However, the high levels of development mean it is impossible to contain all of Attleborough and Besthorpe in a single division and retain good electoral equality.

12

56 All three division patterns we received proposed to include part of Attleborough parish in a Guiltcross division. The proposals from the Council and the Labour Group were the same. Both included a polling district that forms the western half of the Breckland District Council (‘BDC’) ward of Attleborough & Haverscroft in Guiltcross division. The Liberal Democrats’ proposal was similar but did not explain exactly what part of Attleborough should be included in Guiltcross division.

57 Having considered the submissions, we agree that part of Attleborough parish should be included in Guiltcross division to allow for electoral equality in Attleborough division. We do not propose to use the suggested boundaries, as using the polling district would mean running the boundary down the rear of the properties on London Road. This would create a parish ward of fewer than 100 electors. The Commission does not consider that a parish ward with this number of electors would represent convenient and effective local government. We instead propose a boundary that follows Leys Lane, London Road, West Carr Road and Swangey Lane.

58 Without additional amendments, this boundary arrangement for Attleborough parish would leave Guiltcross division with extremely poor electoral equality. We therefore propose to include the parish of Snetterton in The Brecks division and the parishes of Brettenham, Bridgham, Kilverstone and Roudham & Larling in Thetford East, as discussed below.

Thetford East and Thetford West 59 The current Thetford West division has an electoral variance of 20% fewer electors than the county average, representing very poor electoral equality. The Council proposed that part of the BDC wards of Thetford Boudica and Thetford Burrell be included in Thetford West division, along with the entirety of Thetford Castle ward and the parish of Croxton. This parish contains the Kingsfleet development which will be an extension of Thetford town. We therefore consider that it is appropriate to include Croxton parish in a Thetford West division, given the future community identity of those electors. The Council’s proposed Thetford East division included the remainder of the BDC wards of Thetford Boudica and Thetford Burrell and all of Thetford Castle ward. It also proposed to include the parishes of Brettenham, Bridgham, Kilverstone and Roudham & Larling, arguing that these parishes are connected to Thetford along the hi-tech A11 corridor and have similar issues to each other and to Thetford.

60 We accept the arguments for the inclusion of Croxton parish in Thetford West division and the parishes along the hi-tech A11 corridor in Thetford East division, given the evidence regarding the future housing developments around the town. We are therefore recommending the Council’s proposal to include those parishes in Thetford East and Thetford West divisions. However, we propose to amend the boundaries in Thetford town. Our draft recommendations include all of Thetford

13

Boudica and Thetford Priory wards in Thetford West division and all of Thetford Burrell and Thetford Castle wards in Thetford East division. We consider this provides the most effective and convenient local government for electors in Thetford by ensuring that none of the BDC wards are divided between divisions. We were not persuaded by the proposals from the Labour Group or Liberal Democrats in the Thetford area, as both proposed divisions bounded by the Thetford parish boundary and we consider we have received evidence to support divisions that include both parts of Thetford and its nearby neighbouring parishes.

14

Broadland

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 13 1 -6% 14 1 -5% 15 Blofield & Brundall 1 1% 16 Coltishall & Spixworth 1 -6% 17 Drayton & Horsford 1 -6% 18 Hellesdon 1 8% 19 Old Catton 1 -4% 20 Reepham 1 -7% 21 1 7% 22 Taverham 1 -4% 23 1 0% 24 Woodside 1 -7% 25 Wroxham 1 -5%

Whole District 61 Of the three division pattern schemes we received for Broadland, the Council and Labour Group schemes were broadly the same. The Liberal Democrat proposal had elements in common with both schemes but also some significant differences. All three schemes proposed 13 single-councillor divisions.

15

Aylsham, Drayton & Horsford, Hellesdon, Reepham and Taverham 62 The Council’s proposal for this area made minor changes to the existing divisions to improve electoral equality without breaking existing community ties. The Labour Group scheme proposed the same five divisions as the Council.

63 These proposals were for Aylsham, Hellesdon and Taverham divisions to remain unchanged. Both the Council and Labour Group proposed to move the parishes of Hevingham and Stratton Strawless into Reepham division to provide for electoral equality for that division. They also proposed to include Attlebridge and Felthorpe parishes in Taverham division to provide for electoral equality, and to avoid dividing Drayton parish between divisions.

64 The Liberal Democrats proposed a scheme that varied slightly. They proposed to add only Hevingham in their Reepham division, and Ringland and Honingham to their proposed Taverham division.

65 Having considered the evidence in the submitted schemes and having made a number of observations during our virtual tour of the county, we propose five divisions based on the submissions of the Council and the Labour Group.

66 In conducting our analysis, we considered which parishes could be added to the existing Reepham and Taverham divisions to allow for electoral equality. We concluded that due to the differing sizes of the parishes in question, the only proposal that provided for good electoral equality was to include Hevingham and Stratton Strawless in Reepham division and Attlebridge and Felthorpe in Taverham division. While we are confident that these parishes have ties to the others in those divisions, we also accept that they may well also have ties to other neighbouring parishes included in adjoining divisions. We are very interested to hear local views in this area, particularly if they are accompanied with alternative proposals that meet our statutory criteria.

Acle, Blofield & Brundall, Coltishall & Spixworth and Wroxham 67 The proposals we received for these four divisions were also based on the existing divisions but with a greater degree of proposed change to other divisions in the district. The reason for this was the poor electoral equality in the existing Acle division and its location in the far east of the district.

68 The Council proposed to add Cantley, Limpenhoe & Southwood and Upton with Fishley parishes to the existing Acle division to provide electoral equality. It proposed to add Hemblington and South Walsham parishes to the existing Blofield & Brundall division; Great & Little Plumstead parish to Wroxham division; and Coltishall, Crostwick and Horstead with Stanninghall parishes to a renamed Coltishall & Spixworth division. The Labour Group proposed an identical pattern of divisions with

16

the exception of Belaugh parish, which they proposed to include in Wroxham division.

69 The Liberal Democrats proposed a different arrangement for Acle division, including Hemblington, South Walsham and Upton with Fishley parishes. They also proposed to include Great & Little Plumstead parish in a Wroxham division which they named Plumstead & Wroxham. Like the Labour Group, they also included Belaugh parish in this division. The Liberal Democrats also proposed to add Coltishall, Crostwick and Horstead with Stanninghall parishes into a Spixworth division.

70 A local resident supported the retention of the Blofield & Brundall division but agreed if change were needed that the Cantley area would be the logical area to move to a neighbouring division.

71 Having considered the evidence, we are proposing a division pattern based on the submissions from the Council and Labour Group. The evidence submitted by the Council suggested that Cantley, Limpenhoe & Southwood parish shared similar issues with those parishes in the ‘marshes’. It also pointed to the close links between Upton with Fishley and Acle, their local market town. The parishes of Hemblington and South Walsham were suggested to be included in Blofield & Brundall as they are already part of the Broadland District Council ward of Blofield with South Walsham. The Council suggested that including them in this division will improve convenient and effective local government for those electors.

72 The Council’s proposed Coltishall & Spixworth division reconfigures the existing Hevingham & Spixworth division to reflect that Hevingham is now included in Reepham division. We are of the view that the proposed division reflects the community in this part of the district and provides for electoral equality. This arrangement also includes three whole Broadland District Council wards within the division, facilitating convenient and effective local government for those electors.

73 Wroxham Parish Council wrote to ask that the boundaries be redrawn so that Wroxham and formed part of the same division. We are not able to consider this proposal, as Wroxham and Hoveton are in different local authority areas and changes to external boundaries are beyond the scope of this review.

74 Having considered all the evidence submitted, we concluded that the submission made by the Council provides for the best balance of our statutory criteria, recognising community identity of electors in the area. We strongly considered whether to include Belaugh parish in a division with Coltishall but concluded that its strong ties to Wroxham, including its inclusion in the Broadland District Council ward of Wroxham, outweighed the fact that it has no direct access to Wroxham parish.

17

Old Catton, Sprowston, Thorpe St Andrew and Woodside 75 All three schemes for this area proposed that Old Catton and Sprowston divisions should remain unchanged as they already reflect the communities they serve. A local resident also supported the Sprowston division remaining unchanged. We propose to leave them unchanged.

76 The existing Woodside division currently has poor electoral equality with a variance of 13% fewer electors than the county average. However, a significant housing development in the division means that it is forecast to have an electoral variance of 29% more electors than the county average by 2025. As a consequence, the division needs to be reduced in size to provide electoral equality. All three of the submitted schemes proposed to achieve this by moving the electors on either side of St Williams Way (in the area bordered by the Norwich City Council ward of Crome) into the neighbouring Thorpe St Andrew division. We have adopted this proposed arrangement as part of our draft recommendations, while also including the parish of Great & Little Plumstead in the neighbouring Wroxham division (as discussed in paragraph 69). We are of the view that this arrangement is based on strong community evidence and that it provides identifiable boundaries.

18

Great Yarmouth

19

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 26 Breydon 1 -6% 27 Bure 1 -9% 28 Gorleston 1 -8% 29 Lothingland 1 -3% 30 Magdalen 1 -3% 31 North Caister & Ormesby 1 -9% 32 North Flegg 1 -2% 33 Yare 1 -7% 34 Yarmouth North & Central 1 -6%

Whole District 77 The three submissions from the Council, Labour Group and Liberal Democrats provided a range of different proposals, particularly in central Great Yarmouth. All three schemes proposed nine single-councillor divisions.

Bure, North Caister & Ormesby and North Flegg 78 The Council and the Labour Group both proposed the same pattern of divisions for this area, although suggesting different names. The existing West Flegg division has very poor electoral equality, with 24% fewer electors than the county average. The Council and Labour Group both proposed three divisions, comprising identical boundaries, with the Council naming them North Flegg and North Caister & Ormesby and Labour suggesting Flegg and Ormesby. Finally, the Council proposed a division of Bure and Labour proposed a division of Caister, both with similar boundaries. The proposed divisions of Bure/Caister and North Caister & Ormesby/Ormesby both contained parts of Caister, which was proposed to be divided between divisions. The proposed divisions of Bure/Caister also contained parts of unparished Great Yarmouth.

79 The Liberal Democrats proposed a different pattern of divisions in this area. They proposed a division that kept all of Caister-on-Sea in the same division but separated it from parish. They also proposed two divisions of Ormesby & Bure and North Flegg.

80 Having considered the evidence, we are proposing a division pattern for this area based on the submissions from the Council and the Labour Group. The Council and Labour Group proposed slightly different boundaries regarding what part of unparished Great Yarmouth to include in the Bure/Caister division. We propose to use the boundary proposed by the Council. We do not consider that the proposal from the Liberal Democrats provides for the best balance of our statutory criteria, particularly given how it divided West Caister parish from Caister parish and proposed a significant split in the unparished part of Great Yarmouth across two

20

divisions. To provide electoral equality for the divisions in this area, we do accept that it is necessary to include some of the unparished part of Great Yarmouth in a division with parts of Caister-on-Sea parish. However, our view is that that keeping this to a minimum would best provide for convenient and effective local government in this area. We have therefore sought, where possible, to include whole Great Yarmouth Borough Council wards in the county divisions.

81 Our proposed draft recommendations are for a North Flegg division made up of the parishes of , Somerton and Winterton-on-Sea from the existing East Flegg division and Ashby with Oby, , , and from the existing West Flegg division. We also propose a North Caister & Ormesby division comprising Ormesby St Margaret with Scratby, and parishes, as well as the part of Caister-on-Sea parish covered by the Great Yarmouth Borough Council (‘GYBC’) ward of Caister North. Our proposed Bure division comprises , , and West Caister parishes, as well as the part of Caister-on-Sea parish covered by the GYBC ward of Caister South and the unparished part of Great Yarmouth that covers most of the GYBC ward of Yarmouth North.

Breydon, Yare, Yarmouth North & Central 82 The proposals for these three divisions varied greatly. The Council proposed a pattern of divisions based on the current division pattern with a number of amendments to provide better electoral equality. The Labour Group proposed three divisions in this area, including a Yarmouth Riverside division with a variance of 11% fewer electors than the county average. This division also crossed the River Yare, meaning the division did not have full internal access. The Liberal Democrats proposed that Yarmouth Town was divided into Yarmouth West and Yarmouth East along the River Yare. This scheme relies on including more electors from the unparished part of Great Yarmouth in a division with Caister parish than we consider appropriate (as discussed above).

83 We propose three divisions of Yarmouth North & Central, Yare and Breydon. Our draft recommendations are based on the submission from the Council, subject to a couple of amendments to provide more identifiable boundaries. We propose to slightly amend the Council’s suggested boundary between Yare and Yarmouth North & Central to run along Bridge Road. We are of the view that this boundary is more identifiable than a boundary further to the south and means that Yare division has full internal access. This proposed change affects no electors. We also propose to amend the Council’s suggested boundary between Breydon division and our proposed Lothingland and Magdalen divisions, discussed below.

84 The Council suggested splitting Bradwell parish between the three divisions of Breydon, Lothingland and Magdalen. The Council proposed that a number of electors in Bradwell parish along the A143 Beccles Road, Church Lane and Long

21

Lane be included in Magdalen division. The Council’s proposed boundary between Breydon and Lothingland divisions ran along Burnet Road and Primrose Way, with properties to the south being included in Lothingland division. We are concerned that the split of Bradwell parish across three divisions would not facilitate effective and convenient local government or reflect communities in the area. We are also of the view that this proposal did not use particularly identifiable boundaries.

85 Our proposed Breydon division simplifies the Council’s proposed boundary so that the parish is only divided between two divisions (Breydon and Lothingland). Our proposed boundary runs to the north of Magdalen Lawn Cemetery, and then along Primrose Way, the A143 Beccles Road and Browston Lane. While the parish is now divided between only two divisions, the location of the GYBC ward boundaries in the parish means that we need to propose a third parish ward be added. The parish warding arrangements for this parish can be found on page 42.

Gorleston, Lothingland and Magdalen 86 The three submissions we received in this area again had differing boundaries. The Labour Group proposed to retain the existing Magdalen division, and also proposed to include the parish of Hopton-on-Sea wholly in a Gorleston St Andrews division. The Liberal Democrats proposed three divisions of Magdalen, Gorleston and Lothingland. They proposed to include parish in Lothingland division.

87 Our proposals for these three divisions are based on the submission received from the Council, subject to our amendments made to boundaries of Magdalen and Lothingland divisions discussed in paragraphs 82–85. Having considered all the evidence, we have concluded that neither including Burgh Castle parish in Lothingland division, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, nor including Hopton- on-Sea parish in Gorleston division satisfied our criteria of community identity. The proposal from the Council retained a number of electors from Hopton-on-Sea parish within a Gorleston division, reflecting existing division and warding arrangements. We received a number of submissions that argued for Hopton-on-Sea parish not to be divided between divisions. However, we consider that including these electors in a Gorleston division facilitates greater coterminosity and therefore provides for effective and convenient local government for these electors.

22

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk

23

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 35 Airfield 1 -6% 36 Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South 1 3% 37 Dersingham 1 6% 38 Docking 1 5% 39 1 3% 40 Feltwell 1 9% 41 Freebridge Lynn 1 2% 42 Gaywood North & Central 1 9% 43 Gaywood South 1 6% 44 King’s Lynn North & Central 1 -3% 45 Marshland North 1 -2% 46 Marshland South 1 4% 47 North Coast 1 2% 48 Watlington & Wiggenhall 1 7%

Whole District 88 The three submissions from the Council, Labour Group and Liberal Democrats provided a range of different proposals across the district. All three schemes proposed 14 single-councillor divisions.

Dersingham, Docking, Freebridge Lynn and North Coast 89 In this area the Council and Labour Group proposed a North Coast division with differing boundaries, but both included as the major settlement. The Council included North Creake, South Creake and Syderstone parishes in their division and excluded Docking parish, placing it in its own division. The Labour Group named their other proposed division Heacham & Snettisham. The Council’s proposed Docking division also included East Rudham and West Rudham parishes, which the Labour Group proposed to include them in Dersingham division along with Castle Acre, Gayton, Great Massingham, Little Massingham and West Acre parishes. The Labour Group proposed to add Gayton parish to the existing Freebridge Lynn division, while the Council proposed to include Bawsey and Leziate parishes.

90 The Liberal Democrats proposed a very different pattern, with a division solely focused on Hunstanton and Heacham parishes. The remainder of the area formed a Docking division made up of 29 parishes that stretched from the north coast of the district as far south as Castle Acre and West Acre parishes. They also proposed a more compact Dersingham division and a division named The Woottons, based on the existing division of Freebridge Lynn, with Bawsey and Leziate parishes added.

24

91 We received a number of responses from parishes in the area. Snettisham Parish Council wished to retain its connections to Dersingham and Ingoldisthorpe parishes. Bircham Parish Council was content with the existing Docking division. South Wootton Parish Council and Grimston Parish Council were content with the existing Freebridge Lynn division.

92 Having considered the submissions received, we are of the view that the proposal from the Council best reflects our statutory criteria. We considered that the Docking division proposed by the Liberal Democrats was very large and would not provide effective and convenient local government for the electors concerned. We are also of the view that the Labour Group proposal to include Docking in North Coast division does not reflect the community ties in the area. We propose that a division centred on and named for Docking is the best arrangement for this area.

93 When considering the proposals for Dersingham and Freebridge Lynn, we concluded that a Dersingham division that included Gayton parish would provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria. While we accept that Gayton parish has community ties to Grimston parish, we note that including them in the same division would not provide good electoral equality, resulting in an electoral variance of 18% for Freebridge Lynn division by 2025. Our proposals therefore retain Grimston and South Wootton parishes in Freebridge Lynn division, with Gayton included as part of Dersingham division.

94 We also considered the possibility of retaining Snettisham parish in Dersingham division, but we could not identify a pattern of divisions that would achieve this and provide electoral equality for the area. A Dersingham division including Snettisham would have an electoral variance of 32%, with a variance of -21% remaining in Docking division. This is electoral inequality beyond what the Commission is prepared to consider.

95 We particularly welcome local views from local residents in this area regarding our proposals for these parishes, ideally with alternative proposals that meet our three statutory criteria.

Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South, Gaywood North & Central, Gaywood South and King’s Lynn North & Central 96 The proposals for King’s Lynn town and the surrounding areas were all based on the existing divisions with some amendments to provide for electoral equality. The current Gaywood South division has a variance of 20% more electors than the county average and all three schemes proposed that the area to the north of Gayton Road currently in Gaywood South division be included in Gaywood North and Central division. In addition, the Liberal Democrats proposed that a number of electors to the west of Wootton Road be moved from Gaywood North to Gaywood South.

25

97 The Council proposed that the southern boundary of Gaywood South division follow the railway line into the town centre. It also proposed that the area to the south of the railway line in the current Gaywood South division be included in Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South division. The Labour Group argued that this same area should remain in Gaywood South, as did the Liberal Democrats, although they propose to transfer a small part of the area to King’s Lynn North & Central division along with a small part of the existing Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South division.

98 We also received a submission from Councillor Kemp, the current councillor for Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South, arguing for the retention of the existing division. This submission provides a wealth of strong evidence to support the retention of the existing division, detailing how it met all three of the Commission’s statutory criteria.

99 Our draft recommendations for this area are based on all three proposals, which were similar. Having been persuaded by the evidence provided by Councillor Kemp, we propose to retain the existing Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South division without modification. We do not propose to include the area to the south of the railway line in Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South, as proposed by the Council. Our proposals will mean that parts of the district ward of St Margaret’s with St Nicholas are included in both Gaywood South and Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South divisions, with the majority in King’s Lynn North & Central division. While we acknowledge that this arrangement means that there is less coterminosity between the district wards and electoral divisions in this part of King’s Lynn, we were persuaded by the strong evidence to support the retention of the existing boundaries in the Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South division.

100 We are particularly interested to hear local views in this area regarding the community identity of electors.

Marshland North, Marshland South and Watlington & Wiggenhall 101 The three schemes received proposed broadly similar boundaries for Marshland North and Marshland South divisions. The submissions suggested different proposals covering the parishes to the south-west of King’s Lynn.

102 The Council and the Labour Group proposed that the boundaries of the existing Marshland North division should be retained, with an amendment to include Terrington St John parish. The Council’s proposed Marshland South division excluded Marshland St James and Stow Bardolph parishes to provide for electoral equality. The Labour Group also proposed to remove Marshland St James from their proposed division, as well as dividing Stow Bardolph parish between divisions. The Liberal Democrats, in addition to including Terrington St John in a Marshland North division, also proposed to include Tilney All Saints parish. In Marshland South, they

26

proposed to exclude the parishes of Marshland St James, Stow Bardolph and Downham West and instead include the entirety of Walsoken parish.

103 To the south of King’s Lynn town, the Council proposed a division called The Middle Levels, which stretched from Tilney All Saints parish in the north around the eastern flank of Downham Market to Hilgay parish in the south. The Labour Group proposed a Fincham division similar to the existing division that stretched around the eastern side of Downham Market. The Liberal Democrats proposed a Watlington & Wiggenhall division focused on those two parishes and located to the north of Downham Market.

104 Our three proposed divisions in this area are based on the Liberal Democrat proposals, subject to a small amendment. We propose to include Tilney All Saints in Watlington & Wiggenhall division. Having considered all of the submissions, we are of the view that a division located to the north of Downham Market that does not include any parishes from the south or east of the town best reflects the community identity of electors in this area.

Airfield, Downham Market and Feltwell 105 In this area, all three schemes proposed that Downham Market division remain unchanged and continue to cover the entire Downham Market parish. We have adopted this suggestion as part of our draft recommendations.

106 In the remainder of this area, the Council proposed two divisions of Middleton and Feltwell. The Labour Group also proposed two divisions with the same names, although suggested slightly different boundaries. The Liberal Democrats proposed two divisions of Airfield and Feltwell.

107 Having considered the evidence given in the submissions and taking into account the decision made regarding Watlington & Wiggenhall (paragraphs 101– 102), we are proposing to adopt the divisions suggested by the Liberal Democrats. We have not been persuaded that including the parishes of Denver, Fordham and Ryston in a division with other parishes to the north of Downham Market, nor the splitting of Hilgay parish between divisions, would facilitate effective and convenient local government. The submission of the Liberal Democrats proposed an arrangement that addressed these concerns, including placing the parishes of Denver, Fordham, Ryston and Hilgay in a single Feltwell division. However, we propose to make one amendment to the Liberal Democrat proposal for Airfield division – including Gayton parish in Dersingham division rather than Airfield division (as discussed paragraphs 89–94).

27

North Norfolk

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 49 1 0% 50 1 -9% 51 1 5% 52 Holt 1 -4% 53 Hoveton 1 -3% 54 East 1 -9% 55 North Walsham West & 1 -7% 56 1 4% 57 1 1% 58 Wells 1 2%

Whole District 108 The four submissions from the Council, Labour Group, Liberal Democrats and North Norfolk District Council (‘NNDC’) provided a range of different proposals across the district. All four schemes proposed 10 single-councillor divisions.

28

Fakenham, Holt and Wells 109 The Council, Labour Group and Liberal Democrats all proposed maintaining the existing Fakenham division. NNDC proposed to add parish to Fakenham division.

110 We are proposing that the Fakenham division remain unchanged in our draft recommendations. We considered including Ryburgh parish, as suggested by NNDC, but this would not provide for good electoral equality for Fakenham as it would produce a variance of 12% more electors than the county average.

111 The current Wells and Holt divisions have electoral variances of 17% fewer and 10% fewer electors than the county average, respectively. The Council proposed to add the parishes of , Gunthorpe, , , Ryburgh, , and Wood Norton to the existing Wells division. It proposed to move the parishes of Brinton, Letheringsett with Glandford, , and from Wells division to Holt division. The Council also proposed to move Weybourne and parishes to Sheringham division and include the parishes of , , , , and Thurning in Holt division.

112 The Labour Group proposals in North Norfolk are similar to those made by the Council, with the addition of Edgefield parish to their proposed Holt division. The Group also proposed to include the parishes of , , and Wiveton in Sheringham division.

113 The Liberal Democrats proposed to extend the Wells division to cover the coastal parishes from Cley next the Sea to Weybourne. They proposed that Melton Constable division be extended eastwards from the existing division, stretching from Ryburgh parish in the west to Hanworth and Colby parishes in the east. The Liberal Democrats proposed that Holt division also be extended eastwards, with the coastal parishes currently in the Holt division moved to the Wells division and replaced with a narrow corridor of parishes running eastwards as far as on the coast between Cromer and Mundesley. This submission was supported by Councillor Strong, the current councillor for Wells division. We gave strong consideration to the proposal from the Liberal Democrats, but we concluded that whilst we agreed that the coastal parishes around Cley next the Sea should be included in Wells division, we couldn’t support the composition of their Wells division. Nor could we propose their Wells division as part of our draft recommendations without also proposing their Melton Constable and Holt divisions. We do not consider that those divisions met our criteria of effective and convenient local government.

114 NNDC proposed a similar arrangement to the Council but did not include the coastal parishes in Holt division. Instead, NNDC proposed that these parishes be

29

included in Wells division, with the parishes of & Saxthorpe, Edgefield and Wood Norton included within Holt division.

115 Wells-next-the-Sea Town Council supported the proposal to extend the Wells division to include the coastal parishes of Cley next the Sea, Kelling, Salthouse and Weybourne.

116 Our draft recommendations for Holt and Wells divisions are based on the submission made by NNDC. We propose to include the parishes of Cley next the Sea, Kelling and Salthouse in Wells division. Having considered the arguments, we are of the view that these parishes share more common interests and issues with the other parishes we have included in Wells division than those we have included in Holt division. However, we have amended the NNDC’s proposal to include Weybourne parish in Sheringham division rather than Wells, as discussed in paragraph 120.

117 Our draft recommendations also include a small amendment to the Holt division proposed by NNDC. We propose to include Corpusty & Saxthorpe parish in the neighbouring Erpingham division rather than in Holt to provide electoral equality for the Erpingham division as a result of our inclusion of parish in Cromer division, as discussed in paragraph 121.

Cromer, Erpingham and Sheringham 118 The non-coastal parishes of North Norfolk are divided between the existing Holt, Melton Constable and North Walsham West & Erpingham divisions. With the exception of the Liberal Democrats, the other three schemes for this area proposed a division between Holt and North Walsham that recognised the shared interests of these parishes and was bounded to the north by the A149.

119 The Council and NNDC both named their proposed division Erpingham, whereas the Labour Group proposed the name of Eynsford. Under our draft recommendations, we propose a division of Erpingham based on all three of the schemes, although it is closest in composition to the division proposed by NNDC. This division contains all of the NNDC wards of Erpingham, Gresham and Roughton and parts of Briston and wards, as well as Corpusty & Saxthorpe parish to improve electoral equality. We are of the view that this proposed division best meets our statutory criteria for the area. We considered the pattern proposed by the Liberal Democrats but concluded that the arrangements across the non-coastal parishes did not satisfactorily meet our criteria of effective and convenient local government, given the distance of the divisions from west to east.

120 Our proposed Sheringham division is as proposed by the Council, which suggested adding , Upper Sheringham and Weybourne parishes to the existing division. We note the support for this arrangement from Upper Sheringham

30

Parish Council and consider Weybourne parish to have good community ties to Sheringham.

121 Our proposed Cromer division covers the NNDC wards of Cromer, Suffield Park and Poppyland and is as proposed by the Council and Liberal Democrats. The Labour Group included Runton parish and excluded , and Trimingham parishes in its Cromer division. The NNDC proposal was similar to the Council and Liberal Democrats proposal but did not include Trimingham parish. We consider that the evidence points towards the inclusion of Trimingham parish in a Cromer division given its close connections to the other parishes in the district ward of Poppyland. We are of the view that dividing Trimingham from those parishes would not facilitate effective and convenient local government.

Hoveton, North Walsham East, North Walsham West & Mundesley and Stalham 122 The four schemes in this part of the district proposed different arrangements. The Council proposed a Hoveton & Stalham division similar to the existing division, with the addition of the parishes of and parishes. It also proposed a division named Happing based on the existing South division. The submissions from the Labour Group, Liberal Democrats and NNDC all proposed variations on two divisions, one focused on Hoveton and one on Stalham. All of these submissions argued that such an arrangement would better reflect the communities in the area.

123 NNDC proposed a Hoveton division made up of the district council wards of Hoveton & Tunstead and St Benet’s and almost all of ward. Its proposed Stalham division comprises the district council wards of , Hickling and Stalham. The Liberal Democrat proposal is identical to NNDC’s, with the exception of Worstead ward in Hoveton. This facilitates two divisions that each comprise exactly three district council wards. The Labour Group also proposed two divisions of Hoveton & and Stalham with an alternative boundary that divides the district council wards between divisions.

124 Having considered the evidence we received, we consider that a pattern of two divisions, based around Hoveton and around Stalham, best reflects the community identities of these parishes. Our proposed divisions are based on the submission from the Liberal Democrats, and very similar to that made by NNDC. We are of the view that an arrangement which wholly contains three district council wards in each division best facilitates convenient and effective local government in this area.

125 The town of North Walsham is currently split between two divisions which both incorporate part of the town as well as surrounding parishes. A third division to the north of the town, covering Mundesley and Bacton, extends to the coast. As a result of decisions made elsewhere in the district, the area covering North Walsham,

31

Bacton and Mundesley is covered by two divisions as part of our draft recommendations.

126 The Council proposed a North Walsham division comprising the east of the town and surrounding parishes and a Mundesley & Worstead division, containing the west of North Walsham. Given our decisions in the Hoveton and Stalham area (paragraphs 122–124), we were unable to adopt these divisions as part of our draft recommendations, without redrawing other previously agreed boundaries.

127 The Labour Group proposed a Mundesley & North Walsham West and a North Walsham South & East division, splitting district council wards between divisions. The submissions from the Liberal Democrats and NNDC both provided division patterns that kept whole district council wards together.

128 Our proposed North Walsham West & Mundesley and North Walsham East divisions are based on those proposed by NNDC. We are of the view that an arrangement which avoids splitting district wards provides for good convenient and effective local government in the area. While the Liberal Democrats’ proposal also avoided splitting district wards, our Erpingham division includes a number of parishes that they included in their proposed North Walsham West & Trunch division. Consequently, we are unable to adopt their proposal and still retain good levels of electoral equality. We consider that the NNDC proposals for the area provide for effective and convenient local government, as well as delivering good electoral equality and recognising community ties. We have therefore adopted these proposals as part of our draft recommendations.

32

Norwich

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 59 Bowthorpe 1 4% 60 Catton Grove 1 -4% 61 Crome 1 -4% 62 Eaton 1 -7% 63 Lakenham 1 -9% 64 Mancroft 1 8% 65 Mile Cross 1 -6% 66 Nelson 1 3% 67 Sewell 1 -7% 68 Thorpe Hamlet 1 -1% 69 Town Close 1 -3% 70 University 1 9% 71 Wensum 1 5%

Whole Borough 129 We received proposals across the city from the Council, Norfolk County Council (‘NCC’) Labour Group, NCC Liberal Democrats, Norwich City Council Labour Group

33

and Norwich City Council Green Group. All but the Council proposed a pattern of divisions that entirely matched the Norwich City Council wards of the same names, an arrangement which was supported by a number of other submissions from the area.

130 The Council suggested changes to the existing divisions in Bowthorpe, Crome, Lakenham, Mancroft, Nelson, Sewell, Town Close and University divisions. These proposals are discussed below.

131 A local resident suggested a number of changes to Norwich ‘wards’ as part of the consultation, including merging several together. We consider that this submission related to Norwich City Council wards, rather than Norfolk County Council divisions. As well as not being supported by any supporting evidence, the proposals would create several multi-councillor divisions if applied to the city’s division patterns. We have consequently not adopted the resident’s proposals as part of our draft recommendations.

Catton Grove, Crome, Mile Cross, Sewell and Thorpe Hamlet 132 We received proposals for this area from the Council, Labour Group, Liberal Democrats, Norwich City Council Labour Group and Norwich City Council Green Party Group. All but the Council proposed a pattern of divisions that entirely matched the Norwich City Council wards of the same names.

133 The Council proposed that the existing Crome division be extended to include the area to the north of Barrack Street around Mousehold Street. This area is currently in Thorpe Hamlet division. We received four submissions opposed to any change to the Thorpe Hamlet division.

134 Having considered the evidence submitted, we are basing the boundaries of our proposed divisions on the submissions that suggested five divisions matching the City Council wards. Providing coterminosity with the City Council wards facilitates effective and convenient local government for this area. In our view, these arrangements also meet our other statutory criteria of electoral equality and recognition of community ties.

Eaton, Lakenham, Mancoft, Nelson, and Town Close 135 We received proposals for this area from the Council, Labour Group, Liberal Democrats, Norwich City Council Labour Group and Norwich City Council Green Party Group. As before, all but the Council proposed a pattern of divisions that entirely matched the Norwich City Council wards of the same names.

136 The Council proposed a number of amendments to the existing divisions. It suggested moving the St Catherine’s Plain area around Ber Street currently in Mancroft division to the Town Close and Lakenham divisions. It proposed to include

34

an area bounded by Rouen Road, King Street and Cattle Market Street in Lakenham division, moving it from the existing Thorpe Hamlet division. It proposed to include the area of Mount Pleasant around Norwich High School for Girls in Eaton division. Finally, the Council proposed to include the Heigham Grove area in Nelson division, rather than its existing division of Mancroft.

137 Our draft recommendations are based on the submissions that suggested 13 divisions matching the City Council wards. As in the area outlined in the previous section, providing coterminosity with the City Council wards facilitates effective and convenient local government for this area. In our view, these arrangements also meet our other statutory criteria of electoral equality and recognition of community ties.

Bowthorpe, University and Wensum 138 We received proposals for this area from the Council, Labour Group, Liberal Democrats, Norwich City Council Labour Group and Norwich City Council Green Party Group. As before, all but the Council proposed a pattern of divisions that entirely matched the Norwich City Council wards of the same names. The current University division is projected to have extremely poor electoral equality by 2025, with a forecast of 26% fewer electors than the county average by 2025.

139 The Council proposed to include the streets off Enfield Road and Wordsworth Road in the West Earlham area in University division to improve the electoral equality of that division.

140 We carefully considered the proposals for this area and assessed whether we could recommend a pattern of divisions that matched the City Council wards. However, such an arrangement would not provide for good electoral equality here as it does across the remainder of the city. We looked closely at how to best provide electoral equality in this area whilst also providing convenient and effective local government and recognising community ties.

141 We accept that, as far as possible, the areas of West Earlham and Earlham Rise that are now part of the City Council’s University ward should remain in our proposed University division, reflecting local communities. However, such an arrangement would create an electoral variance of 27% by 2026. To provide electoral equality, we must therefore move some electors to neighbouring divisions. We propose to include a triangle of properties bounded by Earlham Green Lane, Gipsy Lane and Bowthorpe Road in our proposed Wensum division. We also propose to include a number of electors centred around the junction of Wilberforce and Malbrook Roads in our proposed Bowthorpe division.

142 Our proposal for Norwich will see 13 single-councillor divisions, of which 10 will have the same boundaries and names as their City Council ward counterparts.

35

Three (Bowthorpe, University and Wensum) will have divisions that differ very slightly from the City Council wards of the same name. We believe this pattern of divisions provides the best balance of our three criteria.

36

South Norfolk

Division Number of Division name Variance 2025 number councillors 72 Costessey 1 8% 73 Diss & Roydon 1 -2% 74 East Depwade 1 5% 75 Forehoe 1 8% 76 Henstead 1 1% 77 Hethersett 1 1% 78 Hingham 1 0% 79 Loddon 1 5% 80 Long Stratton 1 9% 81 Waveney Valley 1 0% 82 West Depwade 1 -6% 83 1 -2% 84 Yare Valley 1 5%

Whole District 143 The three submissions from the Council, Labour Group and Liberal Democrats provided a range of different proposals across the district. All three schemes proposed 13 single-councillor divisions.

37

Costessey, Forehoe, Hethersett and Yare Valley 144 The existing Costessey division has seen a lot of housing development in recent years and currently has very poor electoral equality of 47% more electors than the county average. Given that the overall population and electorate of South Norfolk and across Norfolk continues to grow, this is not forecast to improve by 2025.

145 As a result, all of the schemes we received from the Council, Labour Group and Liberal Democrats suggested a division pattern that resolved this poor electoral equality. We also received submissions from the Queen’s Hill Independent Town Councillors, a Costessey Town Independent Town Councillor, Councillor East (NCC Costessey division) and Costessey Town Council.

146 All three of the schemes proposed that an existing polling district covering the Queen’s Hill area should be moved to a neighbouring division. The submissions from the Town Council and the various town councillors supported the proposal submitted by Norfolk County Council. All of these submissions also noted that if just the polling district that covered Queen’s Hill were moved to a neighbouring parish, electors in Queen’s Hill would have to travel through Costessey division to reach the remainder of the division. To resolve this the Council suggested that a boundary would be needed that gave electors in Queen’s Hill access to rest of the Yare Valley division without having to leave the division. The boundary that was suggested by the Council, Costessey Town Council and various town councillors was drawn to allow electors to leave the Queen’s Hill area via Sir Alfred Munnings Road, Alex Moorhouse Way, William Frost Way and onto the A47.

147 Our draft recommendation is for a Costessey division as proposed by the Council, subject to the amendment outlined above to ensure that the Queen’s Hill area in the adjoining Yare Valley division has access to the entirety of the division. We propose a slightly different boundary to the one suggested, fully following ground detail to ensure that our boundary is clear and identifiable.

148 Our draft recommendation for Yare Valley division is as proposed by the Council and is made up of the existing parts of Hingham division to the north of Wymondham, plus a small part of Wymondham parish discussed below (paragraph 157–158). We are of the view that the division proposed by the Council best met our statutory criteria. It was similar to the Liberal Democrat proposal, but we considered the Council had provided a better division of Wymondham as discussed later in this report.

149 In the Hethersett and Cringleford area, the Council proposed two divisions of Hethersett and Forehoe. Its proposed Forehoe division is made up of the parishes of Cringleford, Keswick & Intwood, Mulbarton and Swardeston. Its Hethersett division comprises the parishes of Bawburgh, Bracon Ash, Colney, East Carleton, Flordon, Hethersett, Ketteringham and Little Melton.

38

150 The Liberal Democrats proposed a slightly different arrangement of parishes, including Colney in their Cringleford division and excluding Flordon from their Hethersett division. The Labour Group provided a very different division pattern in this area, dividing Hethersett and Cringleford parishes across divisions. We were not persuaded that these divisions reflected a good balance of our statutory criteria and consequently we have not adopted them as part of our draft recommendations.

151 Having considered proposals from the Council and Liberal Democrats, we have adopted the divisions of Hethersett and Forhoe suggested by the Council. We consider that the divisions proposed by the Council provided for better levels of electoral equality.

Henstead, Loddon, Long Stratton and Waveney Valley 152 In this part of the district, the three schemes we received all share a good deal of commonality with each other. They also only proposed small amendments to the existing divisions to ensure they met our statutory criteria. In Clavering, the Council proposed to add Bedingham and Woodton parishes to the existing division and move Hales and Heckingham to Loddon division. The Labour Group’s proposal is identical to the Council’s, with the exception of a suggestion to move only Hales parish to Loddon division and Wortwell to Harleston division. The Liberal Democrats’ submission proposed to move Hales and Heckingham parishes to Loddon division and Wortwell parish to Harleston.

153 The Council’s proposed Loddon division reflects the existing division, with the addition of Hales, Heckingham and Surlingham parishes. The Liberal Democrats proposed the same arrangement, with the exception of Howe parish, which is excluded from the division. The Labour Group also excluded Howe parish from their proposed Loddon division.

154 In its Henstead division, the Council’s proposal again reflects existing arrangements, with the exception that Swainsthorpe parish be included. The Liberal Democrats proposed to add Howe and Shotesham parishes and to name the division Poringland. The Labour Group proposed the same arrangement but retained the name Henstead.

155 In Long Stratton, the Council proposed to add the parish of Newton Flotman and remove the parish of Wacton from the existing division. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Group also added Flordon parish, with the former removing Shelton & Hardwick.

156 Having considered all the submissions, our draft recommendations are for four divisions based on the proposals from the Council. We recognise that all submissions from this area are broadly in favour of retaining the existing divisions

39

and are of the view that the Council’s proposals represent the best balance of our statutory criteria. However, we propose one amendment, including Topcroft parish in Long Stratton division to recognise the views of a number of local submissions from that parish.

Hingham and Wymondham 157 The existing Wymondham division has very poor electoral equality with a forecast electoral variance of 25% more electors than the county average by 2025. As a result, a number of electors in the current Wymondham division needs to be moved to a different division. The Council proposed to do this by moving electors to the north of Tuttles Lane East on either side of the B1172 Norwich Road from Wymondham division to Yare Valley division. The Liberal Democrats and Labour Group both proposed different boundaries within Wymondham town. Given our previous decision to accept the Council’s proposed Yare Valley division, we could not recommend either the Liberal Democrat or Labour submissions for Wymondham as we do not consider that any division of the town centre of Wymondham would reflect our statutory criteria. We have therefore adopted the Council’s proposal for Wymondham.

158 Our proposed Hingham division is also as proposed by the Council. Having rejected the proposals from the Liberal Democrats and Labour Group in Wymondham due to their division of the town of Wymondham, we are not able to use their proposals in the Hingham area, although we are also concerned that both proposals divided the Hingham area in a way that does not reflect communities. We consider that the proposal from the Council recognises the community identity of these electors while providing for good electoral equality.

Diss & Roydon, East Depwade and West Depwade 159 The Council, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Group all propose the existing Diss & Roydon division remains unchanged, covering as it does the two parishes of Diss and Roydon.

160 In our draft recommendations we propose to keep this division unchanged.

161 Our proposed East Depwade and West Depwade divisions are based on the proposals submitted by the Council. The Council proposed a small amendment to existing divisions to include Wacton in West Depwade and Dickleburgh & Rushall in East Depwade to improve the electoral equality for both divisions. This was also proposed by Councillor Hudson, a district councillor on South Norfolk District Council.

40

Conclusions

162 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Norfolk, referencing the 2019 and 2025 electorate figures. A full list of divisions, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2019 2025 Number of councillors 84 84

Number of electoral divisions 84 84 Average number of electors per councillor 8,329 8,858 Number of divisions with a variance more than 15 0 10% from the average

Number of divisions with a variance more than 1 0 20% from the average

Draft recommendations Norfolk County Council should be made up of 84 councillors serving 84 divisions. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed divisions for Norfolk. You can also view our draft recommendations for Norfolk on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

163 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

164 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our

41

recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Norfolk County Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

165 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Attleborough Town Council, Bradwell Parish Council, Costessey Town Council, Thorpe St Andrew Parish Council and Wymondham Town Council.

166 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Attleborough Town Council.

Draft recommendations Attleborough Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Burgh North 6 Burgh South 2 Queens North 6 Queens South 1

167 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Bradwell Parish Council.

Draft recommendations Bradwell Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bradwell Central 3 Bradwell North 8 Bradwell South 4

42

168 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Costessey Town Council.

Draft recommendations Costessey Town Council should comprise 19 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors New Costessey 8 Old Costessey 6 Queen’s Hill 5

169 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Thorpe St Andrew Parish Council.

Draft recommendations Thorpe St Andrew Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Thorpe St Andrew North East 4 Thorpe St Andrew North West 4 Thorpe St Andrew South East 8

170 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Wymondham Town Council.

Draft recommendations Wymondham Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Central Wymondham 4 East Wymondham 2 North East Wymondham 2 North Wymondham 2 South Wymondham 4

43

44

Have your say

171 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole county or just a part of it.

172 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Norfolk, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of divisions.

173 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

174 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Norfolk) LGBCE c/o Innovation House Coniston Court Riverside Business Park Blyth NE24 4RP

175 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of divisions for Norfolk County Council which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

176 A good pattern of divisions should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

45

177 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the Norfolk area?

178 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

179 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed divisions too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the divisions appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed divisions? Is there any form of public transport?

180 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be available on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

181 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

182 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

183 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

46

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Norfolk County Council in 2025.

47

48

Equalities 184 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

49

50

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Norfolk County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % Breckland

1 Attleborough 1 7,359 7,359 -12% 9,375 9,375 6%

Dereham North & 2 1 7,992 7,992 -4% 8,274 8,274 -7% Scarning

3 Dereham South 1 8,636 8,636 4% 9,625 9,625 9% Elmham & 4 1 7,961 7,961 -4% 8,349 8,349 -6% Mattishall 5 Guiltcross 1 9,496 9,496 14% 9,783 9,783 10%

6 Launditch 1 8,765 8,765 5% 8,910 8,910 1%

7 Swaffham 1 8,565 8,565 3% 9,033 9,033 2%

8 The Brecks 1 8,642 8,642 4% 8,725 8,725 -1%

9 Thetford East 1 9,304 9,304 12% 9,304 9,304 5%

51

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division name Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 10 Thetford West 1 8,725 8,725 5% 9,249 9,249 4%

11 Watton 1 8,740 8,740 5% 9,668 9,668 9%

12 Yare & Necton 1 8,844 8,844 6% 9,667 9,667 9% Broadland

13 Acle 1 8,042 8,042 -3% 8,355 8,355 -6%

14 Aylsham 1 8,331 8,331 0% 8,394 8,394 -5%

15 Blofield & Brundall 1 8,267 8,267 -1% 8,971 8,971 1%

Coltishall & 16 1 7,996 7,996 -4% 8,365 8,365 -6% Spixworth Drayton & 17 1 7,610 7,610 -9% 8,367 8,367 -6% Horsford

18 Hellesdon 1 8,779 8,779 5% 9,588 9,588 8%

19 Old Catton 1 6,636 6,636 -20% 8,499 8,499 -4%

20 Reepham 1 8,110 8,110 -3% 8,256 8,256 -7%

21 Sprowston 1 9,222 9,222 11% 9,497 9,497 7%

22 Taverham 1 8,305 8,305 0% 8,463 8,463 -4%

23 Thorpe St Andrew 1 8,634 8,634 4% 8,833 8,833 0%

52

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division name Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 24 Woodside 1 4,588 4,588 -45% 8,206 8,206 -7%

25 Wroxham 1 7,170 7,170 -14% 8,459 8,459 -5% Great Yarmouth

26 Breydon 1 8,329 8,329 0% 8,329 8,329 -6%

27 Bure 1 8,055 8,055 -3% 8,055 8,055 -9%

28 Gorleston 1 8,101 8,101 -3% 8,149 8,149 -8%

29 Lothingland 1 7,038 7,038 -15% 8,550 8,550 -3%

30 Magdalen 1 8,458 8,458 2% 8,614 8,614 -3% North Caister & 31 1 8,040 8,040 -3% 8,094 8,094 -9% Ormesby 32 North Flegg 1 8,153 8,153 -2% 8,695 8,695 -2%

33 Yare 1 8,027 8,027 -4% 8,237 8,237 -7%

Yarmouth North & 34 1 8,144 8,144 -2% 8,299 8,299 -6% Central

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk

35 Airfield 1 7,457 7,457 -10% 8,324 8,324 -6%

Clenchwarton & 36 1 8,006 8,006 -4% 9,088 9,088 3% King’s Lynn South 53

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division name Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 37 Dersingham 1 9,098 9,098 9% 9,370 9,370 6%

38 Docking 1 8,840 8,840 6% 9,307 9,307 5%

39 Downham Market 1 8,813 8,813 6% 9,083 9,083 3%

40 Feltwell 1 9,243 9,243 11% 9,677 9,677 9%

41 Freebridge Lynn 1 8,358 8,358 0% 9,060 9,060 2% Gaywood North & 42 1 9,341 9,341 12% 9,627 9,627 9% Central 43 Gaywood South 1 8,755 8,755 5% 9,416 9,416 6% King’s Lynn North 44 1 7,661 7,661 -8% 8,560 8,560 -3% & Central

45 Marshland North 1 8,375 8,375 1% 8,695 8,695 -2%

46 Marshland South 1 8,625 8,625 4% 9,227 9,227 4%

47 North Coast 1 8,436 8,436 1% 8,998 8,998 2%

Watlington & 48 1 9,297 9,297 12% 9,507 9,507 7% Wiggenhall North Norfolk

49 Cromer 1 8,525 8,525 2% 8,820 8,820 0%

50 Erpingham 1 7,986 7,986 -4% 8,074 8,074 -9%

54

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division name Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 51 Fakenham 1 8,469 8,469 2% 9,306 9,306 5%

52 Holt 1 7,941 7,941 -5% 8,511 8,511 -4%

53 Hoveton 1 8,576 8,576 3% 8,633 8,633 -3% North Walsham 54 1 8,019 8,019 -4% 8,033 8,033 -9% East North Walsham 55 West & 1 7,979 7,979 -4% 8,227 8,227 -7% Mundesley

56 Sheringham 1 8,930 8,930 7% 9,175 9,175 4%

57 Stalham 1 8,868 8,868 6% 8,965 8,965 1%

58 Wells 1 9,007 9,007 8% 9,062 9,062 2% Norwich

59 Bowthorpe 1 8,467 8,467 2% 9,229 9,229 4%

60 Catton Grove 1 8,274 8,274 -1% 8,507 8,507 -4%

61 Crome 1 8,515 8,515 2% 8,515 8,515 -4%

62 Eaton 1 8,110 8,110 -3% 8,224 8,224 -7%

63 Lakenham 1 8,045 8,045 -3% 8,045 8,045 -9%

55

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division name Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 64 Mancroft 1 7,977 7,977 -4% 9,555 9,555 8%

65 Mile Cross 1 8,072 8,072 -3% 8,297 8,297 -6%

66 Nelson 1 9,079 9,079 9% 9,109 9,109 3%

67 Sewell 1 8,059 8,059 -3% 8,239 8,239 -7%

68 Thorpe Hamlet 1 7,669 7,669 -8% 8,746 8,746 -1%

69 Town Close 1 8,597 8,597 3% 8,597 8,597 -3%

70 University 1 9,431 9,431 13% 9,671 9,671 9%

71 Wensum 1 9,276 9,276 11% 9,330 9,330 5% South Norfolk

72 Costessey 1 9,153 9,153 10% 9,567 9,567 8%

73 Diss & Roydon 1 8,424 8,424 1% 8,665 8,665 -2%

74 East Depwade 1 9,025 9,025 8% 9,286 9,286 5%

75 Forehoe 1 7,231 7,231 -13% 9,605 9,605 8%

76 Henstead 1 8,258 8,258 -1% 8,906 8,906 1%

77 Hethersett 1 7,481 7,481 -10% 8,943 8,943 1%

56

Number of Variance Number of Variance Division name Number of Electorate Electorate electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 78 Hingham 1 6,879 6,879 -17% 8,873 8,873 0%

79 Loddon 1 9,201 9,201 10% 9,316 9,316 5%

80 Long Stratton 1 9,081 9,081 9% 9,680 9,680 9%

81 Waveney Valley 1 8,692 8,692 4% 8,820 8,820 0%

82 West Depwade 1 8,222 8,222 -1% 8,325 8,325 -6%

83 Wymondham 1 8,684 8,684 4% 8,709 8,709 -2%

84 Yare Valley 1 8,033 8,033 -4% 9,332 9,332 5%

Totals 84 699,604 – – 744,073 – –

Averages – – 8,329 – – 8,858 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Norfolk County Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

57

Appendix B Outline map

58

Number Number Division name Division name

1 Attleborough 43 Gaywood South 2 Dereham North & Scarning 44 King’s Lynn North & Central 3 Dereham South 45 Marshland North 4 Elmham & Mattishall 46 Marshland South 5 Guiltcross 47 North Coast 6 Launditch 48 Watlington & Wiggenhall 7 Swaffham 49 Cromer 8 The Brecks 50 Erpingham 9 Thetford East 51 Fakenham 10 Thetford West 52 Holt 11 Watton 53 Hoveton 12 Yare & Necton 54 North Walsham East 13 Acle 55 North Walsham West & Mundesley 14 Aylsham 56 Sheringham 15 Blofield & Brundall 57 Stalham 16 Coltishall & Spixworth 58 Wells 17 Drayton & Horsford 59 Bowthorpe 18 Hellesdon 60 Catton Grove 19 Old Catton 61 Crome 20 Reepham 62 Eaton 21 Sprowston 63 Lakenham 22 Taverham 64 Mancroft 23 Thorpe St Andrew 65 Mile Cross 24 Woodside 66 Nelson 25 Wroxham 67 Sewell 26 Breydon 68 Thorpe Hamlet 27 Bure 69 Town Close 28 Gorleston 70 University 29 Lothingland 71 Wensum 30 Magdalen 72 Costessey 31 North Caister & Ormesby 73 Diss & Roydon 32 North Flegg 74 East Depwade 33 Yare 75 Forehoe 34 Yarmouth North & Central 76 Henstead 35 Airfield 77 Hethersett 36 Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn 78 Hingham South 37 Dersingham 79 Loddon 38 Docking 80 Long Stratton 39 Downham Market 81 Waveney Valley 40 Feltwell 82 West Depwade 41 Freebridge Lynn 83 Wymondham 42 Gaywood North & Central 84 Yare Valley A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/eastern/norfolk/norfolk- county-council

59

60

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/eastern/norfolk/norfolk-county-council

Local Authority

• Norfolk County Council • North Norfolk District Council

Political Groups

• Norfolk County Council Labour Group • Norfolk County Council Liberal Democrat Group • Norwich City Council Green Party Group • Norwich City Council Labour Group • Norwich Labour Party • Queen’s Hill Independent Town Councillors

Councillors

• Councillor T. East (Norfolk County Council) • Councillor C. Hudson (South Norfolk District Council) • Councillor T. Jermy (Breckland District Council) • Councillor A. Kemp (Norfolk County Council) • Councillor E. Maxfield (Norfolk County Council) • Councillor M. Strong (Norfolk County Council)

Parish and Town Councils

• Bircham Parish Council • Bramerton Parish Council • Brisley Parish Council • Costessey Town Council • Cringleford Parish Council • Dickleburgh & Rushall Parish Council • Grimston Parish Council • Hevingham Parish Council • Hopton-on-Sea Parish Council • Parish Council • Necton Parish Council

61

• Poringland Parish Council • Sandringham Parish Council • Smallburgh Parish Council • Snettisham Parish Council • South Wootton Parish Council • Tivetshall Parish Council • Topcroft Parish Council • Upper Sheringham Parish Council • Wells-next-the-Sea Town Council • Wroxham Parish Council

Local Residents

• 35 Local Residents

62

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

63

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

64 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE