Stowmarket Town Council

Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s Electoral Review of Mid Suffolk

August, 2017 Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 3 1.1 Overview ...... 3 1.2 Proposals ...... 3 1: Sub-division of Stowmarket into Four Wards ...... 3 2: Election of Two Councillors per Ward ...... 3 3: Extension of the Stowmarket Town Boundary ...... 3 1.3 Conclusions ...... 4 2.0 Our Methodology ...... 5 2.1 Councillor Led and Officer Supported Submission...... 5 2.2 Relevant Documentation ...... 5 3.0 Our Proposals ...... 6 3.1 Proposal 1 ...... 6 3.2 Rationale ...... 6 3.2 Proposal 2 ...... 8 3.3 Rationale ...... 8 3.5 Proposal 3 ...... 9 3.6 Rationale ...... 9 3.7 Evidence ...... 9 4.0 Summary ...... 11

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Overview The Town Council appointed a cross-party Working Group comprising five Elected Members to develop the Town Council’s representations with respect to the Electoral Review of Mid Suffolk. The Working Group reached full agreement on all the substantive issues that formed part of the review. Therefore, one coherent submission is now being made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on behalf of the Town Council.

1.2 Proposals The three substantive proposals on which we wish to make representation are as follows.

1: Sub-division of Stowmarket into Four Wards The town of Stowmarket comprises four similar sized town wards comprising a similar number of electors. The wards divide the town into four natural communities, each demarcated by natural features such as rivers and railway lines and reflecting the characteristics of each area. It is proposed that district warding arrangements in respect of Stowmarket are coterminous with the existing town wards.

2: Election of Two Councillors per Ward It is proposed that each ward should be represented by two elected Members with eight District Councillors elected to Stowmarket in total. We believe that this arrangement would serve the electorate of Stowmarket well and future-proof arrangements in respect of proposed residential development given that Stowmarket is the fastest growing settlement in Mid Suffolk and that speed of growth is forecast to continue.

3: Extension of the Stowmarket Town Boundary New residential development taking place around the town’s periphery represents a continuum of the existing development in the town and the residents of those developments will identify with Stowmarket and look to Stowmarket for services. Therefore, to preserve community cohesion it is important that the town boundary is extended, particularly on the western side of the town. It is proposed that, following the Electoral Review, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England requests that Mid Suffolk District Council carries out a Community Governance Review of Stowmarket and undertakes a review thereafter, to align town and district boundary arrangements.

1.3 Conclusions Stowmarket Town Council is grateful for the opportunity to make its representations and requests and that they are considered by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England in determining the findings of the Electoral Review of Mid Suffolk. The Town Council believes that the proposal will help to deliver effective democratic representation based upon four natural communities with four, similar sized, two- member wards. Further, it believes that further extension of town boundary is essential to avoid the evolution of a fragmented urban settlement that would be divided between the principal town and neighbouring villages. Stowmarket Town Council has given these proposals detailed consideration and commends them to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as the basis for future electoral arrangements in Stowmarket.

2.0 Our Methodology

2.1 Councillor Led and Officer Supported Submission A cross-party Working Group was appointed to develop the submission comprising five Elected Members. The Working Group comprised: one Conservative Party Member, one Green Party Member, one Independent Member, one Labour Party Member and one Liberal Democrat Party Member. The Working Group has been supported by the Deputy Town Clerk in preparing and evaluating various options prior to the submission being made.

2.2 Relevant Documentation The Working Group had regard to the contents of the following key documents in making the submission:

 Technical Guidance on Electoral Reviews, The Local Government Boundary Commission for England  Have Your Say on Council Size: Helping You to Make the Strongest Case to the Commission, The Local Government Boundary Commission for England  Stowmarket Area Action Plan, Mid Suffolk District Council  The Core Strategy Development Plan Document as updated by the Core Strategy Focussed Review, Mid Suffolk District Council  Land South of Union Road (Draft) Development Brief, Hopkins Homes Ltd in participation with Mid Suffolk District Council  Chilton Leys Development Brief – Supplementary Planning Document, Taylor Wimpey in participation with Mid Suffolk District Council

3.0 Our Proposals

3.1 Proposal 1

Sub-division of Stowmarket into Four Wards That the town of Stowmarket be sub-divided into four wards to align with the existing town warding arrangements, as follows: Chilton Ward Combs Ford Ward St Peter’s Ward Stow Thorney Ward

3.2 Rationale The District Council accepted the recommendations made by the Town Council in respect of the Community Governance Review of Stowmarket and its Neighbouring Parishes in 2014. One of the key aspects of the submission made by the Town Council, in respect of the review, was the creation of four electoral wards which reflected community identity and interest. The Community Governance Review created of four wards comprising similar sized communities based on the four distinct areas of the town: Cedars Park (Stow Thorney Ward), Chilton Hall (Chilton Ward), Combs Ford (Combs Ford Ward) and the central area of the town (St Peter’s Ward). The new warding arrangements ensured that the town was divided into four natural communities, using natural features that avoided arbitrary lines drawn across neighbourhoods. The town warding arrangements, which have been in place since the local government elections in May, 2015, are established and recognised by local residents. This supports the statutory criteria “That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government”. As part of the work undertaken in respect of the Community Governance Review, the Town Council took a holistic view and put forward a set of supplementary proposals, the first of which is detailed below.

“That the District Council wards for Stowmarket be re-drawn to reflect the proposed amendments contained within this submission.

The above proposal is supported by the following points:

 That using the same ward boundaries for the Town and District Councils would ensure simplification of the warding arrangements for the two tiers of local government;  That using the same geographical areas for representation by Town and District Councillors would lead to efficiency savings on administration of the ward boundaries within Stowmarket; and

 That the process of representation of Town and District wards would be simplified for the benefit of members of the public”. The Town Council considers that the above are as valid now as they were three years ago when they were accepted as part of the Community Governance Review.

A map showing the proposed district ward boundaries in respect of Stowmarket is attached as Appendix A.

3.2 Proposal 2

Election of Two Councillors per Ward That the number of Councillors to be elected to the District Council in respect of Stowmarket shall be eight, as follows: Chilton Ward – two Councillors Combs Ford Ward – two Councillors St Peter’s Ward – two Councillors Stow Thorney Ward – two Councillors

3.3 Rationale We note that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England stated that it was minded to recommend “that 34 District Councillors should be elected to Mid Suffolk District Council in the future” following its dialogue with the District Council. The Town Council acknowledges that a strict allocation of the electoral quota would result in seven District Councillors for Stowmarket. However, we believe that there is a strong case for eight Councillors to future proof the new electoral arrangements as the majority of future growth within the district is likely to occur in, and around, the town. Stowmarket is an expanding urban community with development taking place around its periphery. It is the fastest growing town in Mid Suffolk and it is suggested that the new arrangements should address the estimated increase in the electorate and facilitate effective democratic representation. The following table demonstrates the forecast electorate in 2022 (figures provided by Mid Suffolk District Council).

Ward Electorate 2022 No. of Electorate per Councillors Councillor

Chilton 3,775 2 1,877.5 Combs Ford 4,110 2 2,055 St Peters 4,333 2 2,166.5

Stow Thorney 4,490 2 2,245

3.5 Proposal 3

Extension of the Stowmarket Town Boundary That the boundary around Stowmarket be expanded to encompass anticipated, future residential development including, but not exclusively restricted to, the following areas of development: Chilton Leys – Stow Lodge and the Pauper’s Graves area Union Road

3.6 Rationale Stowmarket Town Council adopted a policy position on 5th October, 2016 thus:

a. That Stowmarket Town Council shall: i. seek to ensure that all development around the edge of Stowmarket which is a natural extension of the town, shall form part of Stowmarket; and ii. recognise that all development which is a natural extension of village settlements shall form part of those villages; b. That Mid Suffolk District Council be informed of this position; and c. That Mid Suffolk District Council be requested to ensure that any future review of electoral arrangements in the district is based upon town boundaries that reflect the continuing expansion of Stowmarket.

The Town Council wishes to preserve Stowmarket as one community, retaining its identity and effective community cohesion. It believes that there is a strong case for a further revision of the town boundary following large scale development on the edges of the town. The Town Council accepts that no extension, to the town boundary, can be made as part of the current Electoral Review. However, it wishes to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, the anomalies which have arisen as a result of development, specifically to the western edge of the town boundary, and requests that a Community Governance Review of Stowmarket and its neighbouring parishes should be undertaken following the Electoral Review to address the anomalies on the western edge of the town boundary and the significant growth which is forecast.

3.7 Evidence The area of land upon which Stow Lodge and the Pauper’s Grave are sited was omitted from the land which was included within the town boundary in 2014. A situation has arisen whereby a parcel of land to the west of the site, currently in the parish of Onehouse, is to be developed as part of the Chilton Leys estate, with the remainder of the Chilton Leys development being within the Stowmarket town boundary. This situation will lead to a natural urban community being divided between the town of Stowmarket and the village of Onehouse.

Map showing the area of Stow Lodge and the Pauper’s Grave and the area of new development

The area of land which is to be developed as the Union Road residential estate, due to the current location of the town boundary, would be partly in the town of Stowmarket and partly in the village of Onehouse. Again, this situation will lead to a natural community being divided between the town of Stowmarket and the village of Onehouse.

Map showing the site of the Union Road development

We would suggest that both areas of development provide a natural extension to the town of Stowmarket, are urban in nature and the residents of those areas would identify with Stowmarket and look to it for services.

4.0 Summary

We would like to thank the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for the opportunity to make representations as part of the review process. We believe that the proposals we have presented are sensible and accord with the following guidance issued on Electoral Reviews.

Electoral Equality

Paragraph 5.18 of the Guidance on Electoral Reviews states “Fairness at local elections – that is, any elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s – is a fundamental democratic principle”.

Based on forecast figures, provided by Mid Suffolk District Council, we believe that our proposals will fulfil this criteria through the creation of four district wards of similar size, comprising a similar number of electors.

Community Interests and Identities

Paragraph 3.5 of the Guidance on Electoral Reviews states “Included in the community identities and interests criterion is the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable, and which will not break local ties”.

We believe that our proposals fulfil the criteria on community interest and identity as they seek to bring the district wards with the established town wards, the latter having been approved by the District Council as recently as 2014.

Effective & Convenient Local Government

Paragraph 5.31 states “A practical example of effective and convenient local government … is to ensure that wards are internally coherent”.

We believe that our proposals fulfil the criteria as the four distinct parts of the town wards, each served by two Councillors, would provide a coherent pattern as the basis for effective and convenient democratic arrangements.