6

SIMULTANEOUS CABINET

Monday 13 November 2017

FURTHER TRANSFORMATION IN EAST SUFFOLK (REP1629)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council agreed in January 2017 to create a new Council for east Suffolk. This was preceded by an intensive period of public consultation in November 2016, the results of which demonstrated that the majority of residents were in favour of one district Council in east Suffolk.

2. The decision to create a new Council for east Suffolk was both ambitious and ground breaking. A “super district” Council will be formed which will be the largest in England in terms of population. The creation of a new Council follows the successful legacy of both Councils working closely together for many years. Officers of all levels of seniority are shared, a joint Business Plan has been adopted and other key policies such as the Housing Strategy are shared. The Councils already share one website under the “East Suffolk” banner and Councillors from both authorities have attended meetings of each Council’s Cabinets since 2010. Cabinet portfolios are aligned and members have shared representation on various outside bodies.

3. The creation of a new Council will be a model other authorities follow as they decide how best to grapple with the significant challenges facing local government. Councils need to be of a scale large enough to face these challenges by having a loud enough voice, a strong bargaining position, a healthy balance sheet and a resilient workforce, yet small enough to feel connected to their residents. The creation of the new Council for east Suffolk will strike that balance.

4. In February 2017 a request was made to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to authorise the creation of a new Council and a business case in support of that request was provided to him.

5. Since then, a number of high profile matters including Brexit have diverted the government’s attention away from progressing local government issues, which has meant the Secretary of State’s decision has not yet been received. The Councils and local MPs have since been lobbying the Secretary of State and DCLG which led to key meetings being held with them. These meetings have had the desired effect of firmly placing the Councils’ ambition for the creation of a new Council back onto the Secretary of State’s agenda.

107

6. It is now hoped that the Secretary of State will commit to making a “minded to” decision imminently, which will trigger the DCLG in to drafting the Order required to create a new authority.

7. A Member Programme Board comprising of Councillors from both Councils was set up to progress the work around the creation of a new Council. It has so far met on four occasions and has considered a number of key matters, thought to be required for the purposes of the drafting the Order. For instance, the Member Programme Board has given consideration to: the name of the new Council, Council size (i.e. the number of Councillors to be elected to the new Council), ward boundaries and whether to adopt a cabinet or some other model of governance.

8. This report details the findings of the Member Programme Board and makes a number of recommendations to a simultaneous meeting of each authority’s Cabinet.

9. These recommendations will be considered by each Cabinet at their simultaneous meeting, and given the significance and nature of the decisions to be made; their decisions will also be referred to each of the respective authorities’ Full Councils.

10. Should these recommendations be accepted, they will be provided to the Secretary of State (and Local Government Boundary Commission for England) so that Order can be drafted, if he is so minded, to bring this in to effect, and subsequently, the Order will be laid before each House of Parliament, for consent.

Is the report Open or Exempt? Open

Wards Affected: All

Cabinet Members: Councillor Ray Herring - Leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council Councillor Mark Bee - Leader of Waveney District Council

Supporting Officer: Nick Khan Strategic Director 01502 523606 [email protected]

108

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 In January 2017, members at Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) and Waveney District Council (WDC) agreed to progress with the creation of a new single authority for the east Suffolk area. 1.2 On 26 January 2017 at the Full Council meeting of Suffolk Coastal District Council, it was resolved: “That following consideration of the Business Case for the proposals previously (in Reports REP1359 and REP1380), and the public engagement conducted by the Councils, the Council of Suffolk Coastal District Council (i) approves the proposal to create a new single Council for East Suffolk as their preferred way forward and (ii) authorises the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leaders of the Councils, to submit a written request to the Department of the Communities and Local Government to commence the formal process of merger of the Councils, based on the proposal set out in Appendix A to report CL03/17.” 1.3 On 25 January 2017 at the Full Council meeting of Waveney District Council, it was resolved: “That following consideration of the Business Case for the proposals previously (in Reports REP1359 and REP1380), and the public engagement conducted by the Councils, the Council of Waveney District Council: (i) To approve the proposal to create a new single Council for East Suffolk as their preferred way forward and; (ii) To authorise the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leaders of the Councils, to submit a written request to the Department of the Communities and Local Government to commence the formal process of merger of the Councils, based on the proposal set out in Appendix A to this report.” 1.4 A Business Case for the creation of the new Council was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 2 February 2017. The Business Case is available on the East Suffolk website: Creating an East Suffolk Council - full proposal document

2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council have been working increasingly closely together since first sharing a Chief Executive in 2008. Simultaneous meetings of the Cabinets have taken place since 2010. This strong and successful partnership culminated in the adoption of a new joint Business Plan, designed to integrate the Councils’ business planning approach for east Suffolk. (Adopted by WDC Full Council on 18 November 2015 REP1285 and by SCDC Full Council on 26 November 2015 CL 28/15). 2.2 This unanimously supported positive step adopts a more business-like approach to developing financial self-sufficiency, encouraging growth across east Suffolk and enabling communities to develop from within, to maintain their unique quality of life. 2.3 Working in partnership has already enabled the Councils to save over £16m since 2010. SCDC and WDC are however committed to building further upon this successful shared services partnership to enhance the quality of life for east Suffolk’s residents. Bringing 109

the Business Plans together was an important part of creating such continuous improvement, within this ground-breaking operational and strategic partnership. The new Business Plan contains the Councils’ long-term joint ambitions for east Suffolk, reflecting their determination to push the boundaries of what they can achieve together. A summary of the vast transformational work undertaken as a result of working in partnership can be found at Appendix A of this report. 2.4 This is also vital as the Local Government world is continually changing and the Government is committed to further public sector reform. Both Councils face a number of key challenges, including:  The need for investment in growth and infrastructure projects;  Addressing increasing housing demand and costs;  Growing employment opportunities and wages;  Significant reductions in Central Government funding for Councils (both Revenue Support Grant and New Homes Bonus);  Devolution of greater powers from Central Government;  Double Devolution transfer of functions & responsibilities from Suffolk County Council;  Further alignment and integration across the public sector;  Improving education and skills;  Better use of technology;  Further welfare reform.

2.5 Creating a new District for east Suffolk requires the consent of the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government. The Department for Communities & Local Government (‘DCLG’) has established five broad principles that it has adopted for considering proposals. It should be noted however that these are not statutory tests and nor do they form statutory guidance. As such there are no wider definitions or details for the five principles. The principles, which are equally weighted, are that the proposal would provide:  better local/public services;  significant cost savings;  greater value for money;  stronger and more accountable local leadership; and  sustainability in the medium to long term

2.6 DCLG has recommended that any proposal for merger by the Councils should be carried out under the powers created by section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (CLGDA). This section provides the primary legislation by which the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the governance arrangements of local authorities, and their structural and boundary arrangements. The carrying out of functions under s15 of the CLGDA are executive decisions. The necessary regulations to make such decisions ones that are reserved to full Council have not been made. However, given the structural changes involved, the DCLG have indicated that, as part of the process, they would expect the proposals to have the support of the full Councils. Hence the recommendation at 5), below, that the proposals be approved by each Council. 2.7 S15 (5) provides that any regulations made under this section, so far as they include structural or boundary provisions in relation to non-unitary District Council areas, may only be made with the consent of the local authorities to whom the regulations apply.

110

Whilst the primary legislation exists to allow for this type of structural change, the “regulations” or secondary legislation referred to above have not been made. In order to make them, the Secretary of State will need to receive a request to do so. That request was indeed made by the Councils to the Secretary of State on 2 February 2017 and a “minded to” decision was expected to be made reasonably quickly after that date. 2.8 However, due to Civil Service and parliamentary time being exhausted by a number of high profile matters – general elections, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, terrorist attacks and the Grenfell tragedy, the “minded to” decision has not been received and has consequently pushed back the Councils’ timetable. If the Councils are to meet their objective of creating a new Council by 2019 it is imperative that any delays are minimised and a “minded to” decision is received as soon as possible. Although delays in central government are very much outside of the Councils’ control, members, local MPs and officers have been applying pressure on DCLG, the Secretary of State, and other bodies such as the Local Government Association at every given opportunity. This proactive approach to lobbying has yielded results as it led to securing key meetings with DCLG representatives on 8th August and then with the Secretary of State himself on 6th September. 2.9 The meeting with the Secretary of State was attended by the leaders of both Councils, the Chief Executive and all 3 local members of parliament. The meeting was very positive and the Secretary of State was encouraged by the unified “front” presented by the Councils’ leaders and all 3 local MPs, who are firmly in support of the proposal. He was pleased that the Councils had submitted all the key information required, including the full business case in February and he viewed our proposal as being at an advanced stage, when compared to some other Councils pursuing similar ambitions. 2.10 Due to a considerable period of time having elapsed since the Councils’ proposals were first submitted to him, the Secretary of State requested some additional information. He asked for an update on the financial position, namely whether the savings originally anticipated in the business case were still applicable. The Secretary of State also asked for further information on the consultation carried out last year, in particular, how the Councils’ have been dealing with any adverse comments received through that consultation. All of this information was submitted to him within a few days of it being requested. 2.11 At the time of writing the DCLG is preparing a report for the Secretary of State’s consideration, which will hopefully enable him to make a “minded to decision” as soon as possible. If a minded to decision is received, this then sets in train the parliamentary Order making process, which will include the DCLG working with the Councils to prepare the draft regulations required. The draft Order must then be progressed through a number of parliamentary stages before it can be finally “made” and become law. After any “minded to” decision is given, the Secretary of State will seek representations on the councils’ proposals for a “reasonable” period of time, which is likely to be around 6 weeks. He will use this to obtain his own validation as to the level of support for the proposals, although clearly any engagement the councils have already undertaken will be reviewed, considered and taken into account. DCLG have said that the Councils themselves will be consultees during this time, and this being the case, any further support for the proposals can be submitted at the appropriate time. 2.12 If he is minded to support the proposals, the Secretary of State will request the creation of an Order that will dissolve the current Councils and create a new Council, transferring the powers, functions and responsibilities of Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council to the new Council on 1 April 2019. The Order must receive the approval

111

of both Houses of Parliament, and be accompanied by a report setting out why the Secretary of State believes it appropriate to create the new Council, and any consultation he has taken into account.

Figure 1 Parliamentary process

2.13 The DCLG has previously indicated that it will take approximately 6-8 months for it to make the secondary legislation to allow the creation of the new Council to take place. Therefore, by using section 15, the Councils will have the period from approximately spring 2018 through to April 2019 to fully prepare for implementation of the new Council. Other formal steps which will be required are that once the DCLG has made the secondary legislation, the Councils will need to consent, formally, to the making of the necessary Order to bring the new Council into existence. 2.14 SCDC and WDC are very much breaking new ground in seeking to create a new Council for east Suffolk. This being the case, the precise details of what an Order should comprise of have not yet been fully clarified by DCLG. 2.15 SCDC and WDC have been advised by the DCLG that there is a need to inform it of the preferred size of the proposed new Council, and its name. In order to consider the proposed size, we need to consider the warding arrangements currently, and how they might work, in future. Also, what model of governance the new Council might adopt, and its structure. 2.16 Following submission of the Business Case in January 2017 approved by SCDC and WDC, a ‘Member Programme Board’ (MPB) was formed to consider these and other key matters for the creation of the new Council in preparation for a decision later in the year. The MPB is made up of 10 members, with 5 being from SCDC and 5 from WDC. The MPB is politically balanced with 4 members from the SCDC Conservative group and 1 member representing the opposition parties/independents at SCDC, and 3 members of the WDC Conservative group, 1 member of the WDC Labour group and 1 member representing the other opposition party/independents. 2.17 The MPB has met on 26 April 2017, 26 June 2017, 7 August 2017 and 13th October with further meetings expected. The MPB does not have the power to make formal decisions but will seek to update members on the process and where appropriate make recommendations to Cabinet and Full Council. The MPB has operated in a cross party manner and it has welcomed attendance from non-MPB Members. 2.18 What follows in this report is the MPB’s consideration of various key matters thought to be required for the purposes of the Order.

112

2.19 Decisions made by Simultaneous Cabinet on the recommendations made in this report will then be proposed to be approved at SCDC’s and WDC’s Full Councils later in November (WDC Full Council on 15th November 2017 and SCDC Full Council on 23rd November 2017).

3 HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE EAST SUFFOLK BUSINESS PLAN? 3.1 Both Councils are committed to ensuring that east Suffolk is in the best possible position to respond to, and take advantage of, these emerging opportunities and challenges. With this in mind one of the planned actions for east Suffolk, as set out in the Joint Business Plan, is to: “Explore the options for further integration between the partner authorities for more streamlined and resilient district services, and evaluate the potential for greater east Suffolk autonomy”.

4 COUNCIL NAME 4.1 Local authorities are required to conform to certain legal requirements when it comes to its name. As two councils are proposed to be dissolved and a new, single district Council created, that new district Council will need a name. “District” is defined in s270 of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972) as “a metropolitan district or a non-metropolitan district”. s1 (1) of the LGA 1972 says that for the administration of local government on and after 1 April 1974, England shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts. 4.2 The districts in the non metropolitan counties were specified by orders made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 1 to schedule 3 of the LGA 1972 and had the names given to them by those orders. S2(3) of the LGA 1972 says that “each council mentioned … shall be a body corporate by the name “the county council” or ”the district council”, as the case may be, with the addition of the name of the particular county or district”. 4.3 The MPB discussed the respective merits of 2 names “East Suffolk District Council” and “East Suffolk Council”. It recommended that “East Suffolk District Council” is an appropriate name to be adopted as the new Council’s name for legal purposes and “East Suffolk Council” as the commonly referred to name. This accords with the MPB’s view that “East Suffolk Council” is the name which residents are most familiar with, given the Councils’ shared website and other references to it in day to day matters. Using “East Suffolk District Council” for legal purposes, in formal documents such as contracts, Orders and the like means the new Council will be compliant with the law pertaining to the naming of local authorities.

5 COUNCIL SIZE 5.1 At the meeting on 26 June, the MPB began work on considering the optimum size of the new Council, having regard to the guidance of the LGBCE. Members worked through the criteria set out in the LGBCE guidance document on determining Council size, and reached an initial decision on their preferred size for the new Council. The workings and rationale in reaching this provisional number are shown in further detail in this report. A proposal on Council size with supporting evidence will serve the dual purpose of informing the Order and also forming the basis of the information needed for the initial stage of the anticipated electoral review.

113

5.2 The provisional Council size number was also discussed further at the MPB meeting on 7 August, at which members were able to see how this number would work in practice if used with the county divisions as electoral boundaries, and had the opportunity to review their workings from the 26 June and ensure they were happy with the preferred number they had reached. 5.3 After that meeting, all 90 members of both Councils were invited to comment on the proposed Council size so that the simultaneous meeting of each Council’s Cabinet could consider these comments and take them into account when making their respective decisions. Eleven Councillors submitted a response to this invitation, two of which agreed with the conclusions of the MPB on the proposed Council size. The comments received stating that the proposed number of Councillors was too low can be broadly summarised as follows:  needing to consider the increased travel and workload for future Councillors due to larger geographical areas;  concerns that this may dissuade candidates from standing for future elections;  poor representation across the demographics of east Suffolk;  consideration that there will be enough Councillors to withstand absences.

A summary of comments is provided in Appendix B of this report for consideration, and the full responses are available as a background paper. 5.4 The preferred Council size will then be communicated to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Secretary of State, along with the LGBCE. It is anticipated that the number will be included in the Order which will formally create the new Council in law, subject to a decision to proceed from the Secretary of State later this year.

6 DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED COUNCIL SIZE NUMBER 6.1 SCDC and WDC currently have 90 members between the two Councils, with 42 at SCDC and 48 at WDC. 6.2 The Business Case presented to members in January 2017 for the creation of a new Council for the east Suffolk area gave an indication of Council size of between 60 and 70 for the new Council, using 65 as a mid-point for comparison purposes. This indication of Council size was not developed by following LGBCE guidance but was used in the Business Case as an illustrative number range. It indicated that the number of members was likely to decrease from 90, but with the caveat that it may not, and that this would be a matter for members to consider further on in the process. Recommendations on Council size should not be based on conjecture or subjective views, but rather on objective justification based on the criteria set out in the LGBCE guidance. To do otherwise could lead to the LGBCE rejecting the proposed number. 6.3 The LGBCE guidance on determining Council size sets out considerations for Councils in determining the optimum number of members that will enable the Council to take decisions effectively, manage the business and responsibilities of the Council successfully, and provide effective community leadership and representation. The LGBCE guidance sets out 3 main criteria for consideration:  the Governance arrangements of the Council and how it takes decisions across the broad range of its responsibilities;  the Council’s scrutiny functions relating to its own decision making and the Council’s responsibilities to outside bodies; and

114

 the representational role of Councillors in the local community and how they engage with people, conduct casework and represent the Council on local partner organisations. 6.4 In considering the above 3 criteria, members of the MPB also gave weight to future- proofing any decision on Council size to ensure that the arrangements would remain effective for the new Council in the coming years. 6.5 Members also considered other useful information such as the ratios of Councillors to electorate/population in other local authorities with similar geography and population to the east Suffolk area, and with reference to the ‘Top 15 Neighbours’ taken from the CIPFA database which shows the closest 15 authorities to SCDC and WDC in terms of demographics and geography. In the document showing comparisons with other Councils (including various unitary authorities) it can be seen for example that Central Bedfordshire Council is comparable with what will be the new Council for east Suffolk. It has a higher population at 274,000 (compared to east Suffolk’s 241,000), with a correspondingly higher number of Councillors at 59 each of whom represent an average of 3,491 electors (compared to 55 (if agreed) for East Suffolk who will each represent an average of 3,518 electors). The example goes some way to demonstrate that a unitary Council with its numerous additional functions (and corresponding work load) and higher population can operate with 59 members. Members were provided with information on the current electorate/Councillor ratios for SCDC and WDC wards, the electorate/Councillor ratio for a range of members from 40 to 90 for the east Suffolk area and other comparison data with similar sized Councils based on electorate or geographical size. Members are referred to Appendix C which contains the various documents mentioned. 6.6 The LGBCE (as well as the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Order) will consider the evidence submitted by an authority regarding the proposed Council size. It will then announce the Council size which it believes provides the appropriate basis for the preparation of warding proposals. As recognised by the MPB, Council size is a separate consideration to warding proposals, where size must be logically determined before warding considerations take place. The LGBCE will not normally carry out a consultation on the specific matter of Council size, but this will be required for consideration of warding patterns should an electoral review be carried out. 6.7 It is worth noting that even if the LGBCE is content with the rationale provided in support of a proposal for Council size, it may choose, at a later stage of the review process, to consider whether it is necessary to change this number slightly in order to ensure better levels of electoral representation across the new district. Having regard to the nature and extent of communities or to appropriate ward/division boundaries, it is often possible to improve the levels of electoral representation across an authority by making minor modifications of say one or two to the Council size. 6.8 Members of the MPB began their consideration of Council size with an overview of some key points:  A decision on Council size should be guided by the LGBCE’s criteria; it should be determined through sound evidence and reasoning, and should take into consideration local factors  The new Council should be able to provide effective and convenient local government, both now and in the coming years

115

 There is no formula to determine the correct Council size; numbers/ratios fluctuate around the country. The determination of a preferred number will be heavily based on local circumstances and the way the new Council wishes to operate  Determination of Council size is based on the number of members required to operate the Council and deliver suitable representation to the electorate. At this stage the warding pattern of the new Council is not a relevant consideration.  In terms of the proposed size of the new Council, there was a general consensus that the current number of members across both authorities (90) would be too large for the new Council, and that indeed the illustrative figure in the business case was at the higher end of the size required.

7 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP / GOVERNANCE AND DECISION MAKING 7.1 Members discussed the number of Councillors that would be needed to deliver effective strategic leadership for the new authority, and the three available governance structures:- - Executive Mayoral - Cabinet/Executive - Committee system 7.2 It was proposed that the Cabinet/Executive model currently in operation at both SCDC and WDC would be the appropriate and preferred option for the new Council, with up to the maximum number of 10 members forming a Cabinet under this structure. This number was suggested to enable the volume of decisions that are likely to be taken by the new authority and to allow for the impact on workload of any changes in national policy. The Cabinet/Executive model was preferred over the other options principally because that particular model has been successfully operating in both Councils for a number of years. The model functions effectively and Members, officers and the public are familiar with its operation. 7.3 The potential workload of members in the new Council was considered, and it was felt important that there was a full compliment of Cabinet members to ensure there are enough members to fulfil the required roles across the broad range of responsibilities the new Council would have. This would enable Portfolio Holders to manage distinct areas of responsibility. Members also discussed the potential for new ways of working that could improve efficiency and reduce the amount of time needed for things like travelling for meetings, however in this particular area it was felt that a Cabinet of up to 10 would allow for the most effective strategic leadership. 7.4 Shadow Arrangements In practice, the new Authority cannot simply come into effect on 1 April 2019. It will be necessary to make appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure that required policies and procedures are in place to enable Council services to continue to operate effectively. 7.5 There are two methods through which the Councils can transition. The first method would involve one of the authorities becoming a “continuing authority” and the powers, functions and responsibilities of the other Council transferring to it on 1 April 2019. In theory, this method is simpler but could give the wrongful impression that one authority is taking over the other, and also misses the opportunity to truly assess governance arrangements for the new Council.

116

7.6 The second method is through operating a “shadow authority”. This body would be created by the Order, and effectively operate as a temporary Council. At present it is not known exactly how a “shadow authority” would operate but this will come to light as the Order making process progresses. 7.7 The Shadow Authority would have the power to adopt the necessary processes and procedures – such as appointing the statutory officers and adopting a constitution - to come into effect on 1 April 2019. It would also set the first precept for the new Council, and adopt sub-structures – for example, appointing committees to agree relevant policies. It would also be responsible for appointing an Implementation Executive, which would take ownership of the oversight of ensuring a smooth transition at the transfer date. 7.8 The existing authorities would have a duty to co-operate with the Shadow Authority to help ensure a smooth transition. 7.9 Internal Accountability Members discussed the number of Councillors needed to deliver the required internal functions that enable the authority to operate, including the preferred format and structure of committees both for statutory and non-statutory functions, and the resulting number of seats. 7.10 Consideration was given to the more standard committee structures that are traditionally used, and also to an alternative ‘area-based’ structure that might enable decision-making to be devolved to a more local level. The idea of devolved, community- based decision-making was welcomed in light of the larger geographical area the new Council would cover, and a desire to ensure that local residents, parish/town Councils, businesses and local groups were able to be fully involved in local government for their area. 7.11 Members considered the advantages and disadvantages of standard structures compared to alternative/innovative structures, the alternative ways of working available to members to facilitate different structures, and the effect of members sitting on more than one committee (and whether a smaller Council size would require members to represent more than one committee). 7.12 Currently at SCDC, in addition to Full Council and Cabinet meetings there is an Audit and Governance Committee, a Licensing and Health Committee (and a Sub-Committee), a Planning Committee, a Scrutiny Committee, and a Joint Appointments Committee (shared with WDC). There are also existing task groups and programme boards including a task group for Sizewell C. This structure involves around 243 seats, which are currently serviced by 42 members. 7.13 At WDC, in addition to Full Council and Cabinet meetings, there is an Audit and Governance Committee, a Licensing Committee, a Planning Committee, an Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the Joint Appointments Committee (with SCDC). There are also existing working groups and steering groups, including a Housing Benefits and Tenants Services Consultation Group. This structure involves around 257seats, which are currently serviced by 48 members. 7.14 Possible Future Position The table in Appendix D of this report sets out the current number of seats at SCDC and WDC as well as an estimate of the future position. It illustrates the various scrutiny and regulatory committees, as well as external boards which are likely to operate in the new

117

Council and the discussions which took place at MPB to develop the recommended numbers. 7.15 Community Partnership Boards (Area Committees) It was discussed by members that ‘Community Partnership Boards’ (CPBs) would be an innovative way for the new Council to conduct its business and ensure that decision- making remained local for residents, alleviating any concerns that residents might feel that decision-making would seem remote from them in a geographically larger Council. 7.16 It was suggested that CPBs could be set up, comprising of a small number of wards grouping together and the Councillors representing those wards becoming members of the CPB for that area. This could include all of the Councillors for the CPB area, or perhaps 1 from each ward if there were multi-seat wards. 7.17 The CPBs could be used to facilitate partnership working, with stakeholders coming together to make decisions locally. This could include residents, parish/town Councils (who could receive updates from the District Council together, in one location, rather than district members visiting meetings separately), local businesses, local steering groups, local voluntary/community groups as well as the Police, Suffolk County Councillors. The CPB meetings could include discussion and information-sharing on local priority issues as well as potentially in future the delegation of some of the statutory District Council business such as planning and licensing decisions. 7.18 It was suggested that this model would provide an excellent structure within which to deliver localised decision-making and to provide residents and other local stakeholders with a way to easily engage with the District Council. The number of seats on each CPB would be determined largely by the warding structure that would be agreed following the LGBCE boundary review and the subsequent number of members for each ward. As such it was not possible at this time to account for how many seats would be on each CPB but it was suggested that perhaps 8-10 member seats per CPB would be a good size, with the creation of perhaps 6 or 7 CPBs depending on the overall size of the Council and the warding pattern, and how the wards best fitted together in logical groups. 7.19 External Accountability Members discussed the number of Councillors required to be a part of external boards/trusts/other outside bodies. This included consideration of the key external bodies that members believed the new Council should be represented on, including: Waveney Norse, Suffolk Coastal Norse, Sentinel, and NALEP. 7.20 Currently there are approximately 61 appointments to outside bodies, trusts and partnership boards at SCDC, and 80 appointments at WDC. 7.21 Members reviewed the current appointments that are made and considered that the number is likely to reduce through some bodies only requiring one representative per Council, and also through a review of whether some positions are still needed. It was noted that the new Council would ultimately be able to decide which outside body appointments it chose to take up and may wish to look at some appointments that had historically been carried over each year but may not necessarily be required anymore. There would also need to be a degree of consistency across the new district, and members would ultimately be able to advise which organisations they could support through attendance at their individual meetings. It would also be an option, if the Community Partnership Board model was put into operation, to invite any local outside bodies to their respective CPB meeting rather than needing a district member(s) to attend each individual meeting of the different bodies. This may actually be

118

advantageous for the local groups in joining up the activities that are taking place in each locality. 7.22 Members agreed that it was likely that outside body representation for the new Council would be in the region of: 70 Executive positions 40 Non-Executive positions

7.23 Representation The MPB discussed representation and the number of members needed to provide the residents in their area with a suitable level of support and availability to deal with enquiries. Members stressed this was a key factor and wished to ensure that any potential reduction in member numbers would not mean they were stretched too thinly and therefore could not address the needs of everyone in their area. It was noted that the representational role of Councillors in the local community is very important; they provide the link between electors and the Council and are the conduit of effective local government. Therefore, there does need to be a suitable number of members in the Council to enable proper representation. 7.24 SCDC and WDC commissioned a COMRES survey in October 2016 in which 1,000 residents (500 for each district) were surveyed in relation to the creation of a new Council. One aspect of the survey focussed on the potential reduction of Councillor numbers and sought residents’ views on this. When asked what impact they thought a reduction in the overall number of Councillors will have on how their Council is run, local residents mostly said it will make no difference at all (40%). Similar proportions said it will have a positive (29%) and negative (26%) impact. There were no significant differences by demographic sub-group, with the perceived impact of the reduction broadly consistent among different age groups. However, adults who were unfavourable towards the proposal were significantly more likely than those who were favourable to say that the reduction in the number of Councillors will have a negative impact on how the Council is run (52% vs 17%). This suggests that for those who did not approve of the proposed creation of a new single District Council, the reduction in the number of local representatives was an important factor. 7.25 Members of the MPB suggested that is was important to consider and balance all aspects of the representative role of a District Councillor – in terms of both the resource required to act in the capacity of a policy maker and community leader (participating in formal decision making and governance arrangements), as well as being an ambassador for the Council and representing the interests of their ward, the residents, and the wider area. 7.26 Members also discussed the coverage of Councillors over the rural areas of the new district, and compared this with the potential issues of the urban areas, and considered how this spread and variety would impact on workload. The new Council will cover approximately 191,000 electors or 244,000 people. The east Suffolk area is mainly rural in nature but does include some larger urban areas, including Lowestoft, the second largest town in Suffolk. Members discussed how a large rural ward may be resource- intensive in terms of travel time between villages and giving enough attention to individual parishes within the ward, but also how a dense urban ward could be equally demanding in terms of the type of issues that might need addressing. 7.27 Members discussed how new ways of working could help to deal with the rurality and geography of the area, for example by holding area meetings where many parishes attended all in one place, reducing the need for members for travel on different days to different areas. The use of technology such as email updates and use of social media 119

could also create efficiencies in working. It was considered that it is likely that a mix of traditional and new ways of interacting with residents will be used in future ranging from social media to traditional surgeries, from blogs to articles in printed magazines, and from home visits to area meetings. 7.28 It was agreed that rurality and geography are not in themselves sufficient factors to automatically increase the number of members, however they are a consideration and the new Council should have enough members to adequately represent the geographical size of the new ‘East Suffolk’ Council. 7.29 Members also reviewed the number of other elected representatives that cover east Suffolk including MPs, County Councillors, and Town/Parish Councillors. In particular, it was mentioned that there are two new Councils in the WDC area – a new parish Council in Oulton Broad and a new town Council in Lowestoft. This follows a Community Governance Review conducted in 2016. The creation of the new Councils ensures that all areas in the new east Suffolk district would be on even footing, all benefitting from their own town/parish-level representation. This also means that the large urban area of Lowestoft benefits from its own dedicated set of 20 Councillors separate from the ward level representation; a first for this area. The amount of time and resource put in to creating these 2 new Councils demonstrates the level of importance placed on ensuring democratic representation is afforded to all residents in all locations. 7.30 Members considered the elector/Councillor ratios that different numbers of Councillors would produce, using a template provided with the current electorate. For example a Council size of 55 members would give a ratio of approx. 3,518 electors per Councillor, compared with a Council size of 65 members which would give a ratio of approximately 2,977 electors per Councillor. The current average ratio for SCDC is approximately 2,405 and for WDC is approximately 1,927. SCDC has most recently had an electoral review in 2015 seeing a reduction in the number of members from 55 to 42; WDC has not had an electoral review since 2001. 7.31 There is no set elector/Councillor ratio that should be achieved, and the ratios vary widely across the country and between different authorities. Members considered that the ratio of electorate to Councillor should be manageable and such that it would not discourage potential new members from standing, however it should be considered that new ways of working should enable members to engage more efficiently in their representational role and that some members thought that an increase in electorate for their ward would not necessarily cause a proportional and unmanageable rise in the amount of interactions they experienced. 7.32 In summary, members considered the balance that must be achieved between providing efficiencies and creating a modern, streamlined Council, whilst also ensuring the new Council will be sufficient in size to deliver good quality democratic representation to the local communities they will be serving. 7.33 Total number of seats in the new Council (from discussions on governance, internal accountability, and external accountability) 10 (up to) – Cabinet 93 (est.) – Internal accountability 110 (est.) – External accountability = 213 seats (plus full Council)

120

7.34 This total of 213 seats represents the number of seats the new Council would have to service. This total does not include the number of seats for Full Council, which if set at 55, would take the total number of seats that members would fill up to 268. 7.35 This number also does not include any seats on the CPBs, as these would be determined once the Council size was decided and the warding structure was established. 7.36 Members discussed the number of Councillors they felt would be required to be able to fulfil the structure of 268 seats, and to provide adequate representation. 7.37 It was agreed that 55 members could meet this structure and provide representation. This would result in a ratio of approx. 3,518 electors per Councillor. 7.38 It was acknowledged that this Council size figure may increase or decrease by 1 or 2 in light of a future full electoral review conducted by the LGBCE, which may result in the need to alter the number to enable the best fit for equitability for a new warding structure.

8 WARDING ARRANGEMENTS 8.1 Members of the MPB discussed the need to propose the district ward boundaries of the new Council for the purposes of the Order, which would come before any LGBCE electoral review. One of the key issues is timing. If the Order is made too late, then the LGBCE will not have enough time in which to carry out an electoral review in readiness for 2019. If that is the case, then the new Council will have to be implemented on county boundary lines, which would be the only realistic way of setting out boundaries for the purposes of the Order. If however, the Order is made in time, then a full electoral review can be carried out by the LGBCE and entirely new boundaries which meet the LGBCE’s criteria can be implemented in 2019. In that event, boundaries based on county divisions for the purposes of the Order will be superfluous. They will in effect be cast aside and overwritten by boundaries emerging from the completely fresh electoral review. 8.2 Members also gave consideration whether to use a multiple of the 26 county Council seats that currently serve the 19 county divisions, to generate a Council size figure for the new Council that would be broadly equitable based on the current ratios for the county Council seats (for example 26 x 2 = 52 members), or, whether to start from scratch using LGBCE guidance to arrive at a more reasoned decision for a new Council size for east Suffolk. Members were minded to propose the latter, which if agreed at 55 Councillors would necessitate that number fitting into to 19 district wards. 8.3 In order to do this there are 2 approaches; the first being to broadly satisfy electoral equality requirements (i.e. members each representing a similar number of electors) as far as possible within the constraints of the number of divisions and the new Council size and work out how best to fit the 55 into the 19 divisions to give the least electoral variance, and the second being to simply divide the number of members across the number of divisions without attempting to deliver any level of equality. 8.4 If the best levels of equality are to be delivered, the number of Councillors in some wards would be 5, and this is considered impractical to deliver in terms of holding elections. Reducing the number of Councillors per ward to a maximum of 4 would deliver slightly worse electoral equality, but would be more practical in terms of delivery. However, the LGBCE do not usually create 4-member wards. Finally, creating wards with a maximum of 3 members in each case, except for 2 wards with 2 members, would result in substantially inequitable wards, but would fit with the usual parameters of 3-members wards. For the purposes of the Order it may be that the DCLG proposes the use of 3- member wards with the 19 county divisions as a short-term arrangement before the 121

LGBCE review is conducted and proper warding can be implemented. However, it is proposed that in order to maintain reasonable levels of electoral equality, whilst operating wards without excessive numbers of members, wards with up to 4 members should be utilised. 8.5 It is worth reiterating that boundaries based on county divisions will only be implemented in the event of the LGBCE not being able to carry out a full LGBCE electoral review in time for 2019.

9 FINANCIAL AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS 9.1 The original Business Case submission to the DCLG in February contained a financial business case for the implementation of a new council. Following the recent discussions with the DCLG, an update to the Financial Business Case was requested and submitted back to the department in September 2017. 9.2 The updated financial business case and proposals contained within this report continue to support the original business case, and, in principle, are indicative of further improvements to the benefits included within the original proposal including additional formation on the key initiatives to be progressed by the new Council. 9.3 The successful transition to a new Council will require intensive and coordinated governance from both members and officers. The MPB has the overall responsibility for providing strategic direction and coordination of this programme and will require a number of member working groups and an officer programme team to assist it with its work. Member working groups comprising of a small number of Councillors from SCDC and WDC will each work on a specific area/topic requiring detailed consideration. The groups will feed into the MPB, who will provide oversight and any onward recommendations for decisions at Simultaneous Cabinet / Councils. 9.4 The officer programme team comprising of a small number of senior and key officers will carry out the detailed coordination and programme management of all the various projects and work streams which flow from the task of creating a new Council. It will, through detailed project planning, coordinate the work required to be completed both on a corporate and service area level, in order for the transition to one Council to be as seamless as possible. It will create and follow a “master” project plan (as well as smaller project plans flowing from/to it) to assist it with its coordinating role. This will ensure the completion of work in a timely manner and will create a clear “road map” to help navigate through the complicated path ahead. The programme team will report to the MPB on a regular basis and provide assistance to the member working groups as required. 9.5 A diagram showing the proposed governance of this complex programme, from both an officer and member perspective, can be found at Appendix E of this report.

10 OTHER KEY ISSUES 10.1 SCDC and WDC are legally bound to consider whether the decisions it proposes to make will have a disproportionate effect on certain sections of the community, namely those with “protected characteristics” (disability, age etc.). The Council has carried out an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) in which it considers whether the proposed Council size will have any such effect.

122

10.2 The findings of the Equality Impact Assessment are that this proposal does not have a significant impact on any specific section of the community. The full Equality Impact Assessment can be found at Appendix F of this report.

11 CONSULTATION 11.1 In addition to the Member consultation referred to in paragraph 5.3 and the COMRES survey referred to in paragraph 7.24, a further update was provided to the DCLG in September 2017 with information relating to any objections received and any additional work undertaken since the submission in February 2017. This additional consultation briefing note is available as a background paper.

12 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED 12.1 The Cabinets could decide on a variety of other options in relation to each of the recommendations proposed. However, the MPB which is cross party and representative of both authorities has already considered such matters and proposes the recommendations provided below.

13 REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION 13.1 Further to submitting the business case to the Secretary of State in February 2017 the Councils have been awaiting a “minded to” decision from the Secretary of State. 13.2 Once a “minded to” decision from the Secretary of State is received, DCLG will commence the Order making process, which once made will create the new Council for east Suffolk. 13.3 The Councils need to provide DCLG with some key information which will from part of the Order. 13.4 The recommendations set out what are considered to be the key information for the purposes of the Order.

RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that;-

1) if the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is minded to make a decision to create a new council for east Suffolk, the following be proposed to the Secretary of State for inclusion in any Order/Regulations which shall be made to implement these proposals: A) Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) and Waveney District Council (WDC) be dissolved and one new Council for east Suffolk be created to replace them B) the cabinet model of governance be adopted for the new Council for east Suffolk with up to a maximum of 10 cabinet members. C) the name of the new Council for east Suffolk be “East Suffolk District Council” for legal purposes and “East Suffolk Council” for all other purposes. D) the preferred number of members for the East Suffolk Council is 55 (+/- 1 or 2, subject to review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE)). E) the proposed district wards of the new East Suffolk Council are based on 19 existing

123

County Council Divisions against which the preferred number of members (55 +/- 1 or 2, subject to LGBCE review) will be divided as appropriate with up to 4 Councillors per ward with the proviso that the County Council Divisions be overwritten by the new ward boundaries once such a boundary review has been undertaken. F) the LGBCE be requested to conduct a full electoral review of the area of the East Suffolk Council including the determination of an appropriate warding structure and that they be requested to conduct this review as soon as reasonably possible. 2) the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leader of SCDC and the Leader of WDC be authorised to settle other such matters required for the purposes of finalising the Order/Regulations necessary for implementing these proposals. 3) the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leader of SCDC and the Leader of WDC be authorised to consent to making of the necessary Order/Regulations once drafted on behalf of the Secretary of State in order to implement these proposals. 4) During the period in which the Secretary of State invites representations, authority is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leader of SCDC and the Leader of WDC, to respond to his invitation and confirm the Councils’ commitment to supporting the creation of a new Council for east Suffolk. 5) the recommendations contained in this report be approved and agreed at the simultaneous meeting of SCDC and WDC’s Cabinets and, in order to satisfy the Secretary of State’s need for the recommendations to be supported by each Council, they be recommended for approval to each Full Council meeting to be held at WDC on 15 November 2017 and at SCDC on 23 November 2017.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Transformation in East Suffolk

Appendix B Summary of Councillor comments on Council size

Appendix C Comparison data – proposed Council size

Appendix D Number of seats – current and future position

Appendix E Programme Governance diagram

Appendix F Equality Impact Assessment

BACKGROUND PAPERS Please note that copies of background papers have not been published on the Council’s website but copies of the background papers listed below are available for public inspection free of charge by contacting the relevant Council Department.

Date Type Available From

124

LGBCE April 2014 https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10410/technical- Electoral Reviews guidance-2014.pdf (The whole document is relevant but there is a Technical Guidance specific appendix about Council size from page 41 of the document) Full Councillor comments Sept 2017 [email protected]. on Council size Financial Case Briefing Sept 2017 [email protected] Note for DCLG Update on Consultation Sept 2017 [email protected] for DCLG

125

Appendix A APPENDIX A

Transformation in East Suffolk

The journey of partnership working between Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils.

126

Our transformational journey has brought us to a point where further transformation, efficiencies and savings can only be made now as a result of becoming a single District Council. Further rationalisation of working practices, elimination of recharging between Councils, elimination of other duplication in place due to existing as two sovereign authorities, easier contract management, contracting with suppliers as a single legal entity, rationalising the democratic processes, implementing single IT systems for Elections, Democratic Services and Payments, rationalising our software licensing as a single entity and other opportunities outlined in this business case can all be realised by taking this next logical step in our evolution.

127

APPENDIX B Appendix B COUNCILLOR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED SIZE OF NEW EAST SUFFOLK COUNCIL TOTAL NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS SUBMITTING COMMENTS: 11 out of 90 Councillors Summary of comments on No. Comments received: proposed Council size: Those commenting to agree 2 ‘I am happy that the number of Councillors would fit the bill but only 55 is adequate just’ ‘No problems on the number of Councillors in my opinion there are far too many now!’ Those commenting to 5 ‘It was stated clearly by the former Leader that a 60 number would be propose a different number considered … numbers should be at least 60 to allow for better representation.’ ‘… the original business case which suggested 60 Councillors would allow for greater diversity and better quality of representation.’ ‘The optimum solution to achieve a 10% variance would be 72 Councillors.’ ‘… in the 65+ Cllr number area rather than at the lower 55 Cllr zone suggested.’ ‘Therefore my proposal would be to create an interim Council using 72 Councillors in existing wards, with the intention of further reducing the number of Councillors in conjunction with a re-warding of the new district.’ Reasons to object to 55 (considered being too low): Increased travel 3 ‘… reflect the increased time and responsibility of a much larger geographical area (with regards to travel) and increased Ward size. … Greater travelling distances for the Cllrs on the merged Council will mean the greater chance of missing meetings due to car/rail/road problems so safety in the number of Cllrs available to serve on all Committees is required.’ ‘Travelling between a greater number of Parish Councils in the rural areas would also be a problem and may lead to an increase in expenses claimed.’ ‘… meetings being differently located with certain travel time increases;’ Increased workload 3 ‘With the decrease in Councillor numbers and the increase in numbers of residents within each constituency, the result will obviously bring an increase in the workload placed on each Councillor.’ ‘I think the work load would increase.’ ‘Cllr workload will inevitably increase (because of increased resident numbers and larger geographical wards)’ May dissuade candidates 7 ‘The outcome of this might be that anyone in fulltime work, a parent or from standing for election primary carer will find it impossible to undertake Councillor duties. Future Councillors will either be the wealthy, retired or self- employed.’ ‘… regarding becoming a Councillor, one of the major issues that seems to be universally accepted is that they would be unable to give the time required. … I like many other Councillors do try and give commitment to the residents we represent but there has to be a point where the areas are to large to give the service needed.’ ‘It’s not inconceivable that the constituency size increase will dissuade or impact Councillors who work full time, have family commitments and/or are primary carers.’ ‘There could be difficulties in getting young and diverse Cllrs and those who are on zero hours contract work without the flexibility of being able to take time off at short notice to put themselves up for election.’ ‘This would mean (more than ever) that the job of Cllr will suit in the main, white, middle class and retired people only. The chance of a young married person with children taking up the job would be 128

reduced.’ ‘I feel that the number stated and reduction in Councillors will have a big impact on members wishing to stand again. Most people have several other matters and commitments in their lives and cannot give the required time to the size of the Wards in their area.’ ‘This will result in more time taken up on Council work, which will result in greater pressures on a work-life balance and might dissuade candidates from standing as Cllrs’ Poor representation 4 ‘I also feel that there will be many constituents that will feel that they will not be truly represented within East Suffolk.’ ‘I’d suggest that some demographics could lack future representation due to this oversight.’ ‘Local Government elected Cllrs need to reflect the variety of people within their wards, not just the wealthy, retired and those who have the time to give to local politics.’ ‘What must be ensured is that Cllrs are truly representative of their wards in terms of age, income, occupational status etc.’ Enough Councillors to 2 ‘… needs to be large enough to withstand Cllr absences whether withstand absences `subbed` or not.’ ‘… multi-member wards because when one member is on holiday the other member(s) can cover’

Full comments received from the 11 Councillors are available as a background paper.

129

APPENDIX C Appendix C Comparison Data - Proposed Council Size

Average elector per Councillor ratio examples for 'East Suffolk' electorate

Example number of Councillors Resulting electors per Councillor 40 4,837 41 4,719 42 4,607 43 4,500 44 4,397 45 4,300 46 4,206 47 4,117 48 4,031 49 3,949 50 3,870 51 3,794 52 3,721 53 3,651 54 3,583 55 3,518 56 3,455 57 3,394 58 3,336 59 3,279 60 3,225 61 3,172 62 3,121 63 3,071 64 3,023 65 2,977 66 2,932 67 2,888 68 2,845 69 2,804 70 2,764 71 2,725 72 2,687 73 2,650 74 2,615 75 2,580 76 2,546 77 2,513 78 2,481 79 2,449 80 2,419 81 2,389 82 2,360 83 2,331 84 2,303 85 2,276 86 2,250 87 2,224 88 2,199 89 2,174 90 2,150

130

15 Nearest Neighbours (current Council sizes)

Suffolk Coastal Statistical closeness Ratio Electors to Suffolk Council (population per Local Authority Coastal Population size per cllr) Electors Councillor South Hams 0.0736 84,300 31 2,719 67,386 2,174 Teignbridge 0.0737 129,900 46 2,824 201,491 4,380 Chichester 0.0783 113,800 48 2,371 91,659 1,910 New Forest 0.0866 176,400 60 2,940 141,338 2,356 West Dorset 0.0874 101,400 42 2,414 80,703 1,922 Lewes 0.0885 93,900 40 2,348 73,928 1,803 Wealden 0.0935 157,600 55 2,865 121,783 2,214 Purbeck 0.0936 45,200 25 1,808 36,595 1,464 Stratford-On-Avon 0.0957 120,485 36 3,347 98,775 2,744 Sedgemoor 0.1014 105,900 48 2,206 91,699 1,910 Fareham 0.1147 115,400 31 3,723 88,835 2,866 Wychavon 0.1196 121,500 45 2,700 97,233 2,161 Hambleton 0.1237 90,500 28 3,232 71,623 2,558 Babergh 0.1262 89,200 44 2,027 71,685 1,667 East Devon 0.1295 139,900 59 2,371 113,169 1,918 Waveney

Statistical closeness Ratio Electors to Council (population per Local Authority Waveney Population size per cllr) Electors Councillor Tendring 0.0437 142,600 60 2,377 109,644 1,827 Dover 0.0637 113,100 45 2,513 87,212 1,938 Shepway 0.0679 111,200 30 3,707 81,116 2,704 Allerdale 0.0839 96,700 56 1,727 72,738 1,299 Sedgemoor 0.0857 105,900 48 2,206 91,699 1,910 Great Yarmouth 0.0866 98,700 39 2,531 72,885 1,869 Scarborough 0.0908 108,800 50 2,176 81,979 1,640 North Devon 0.0939 94,600 43 2,200 75,927 1,766 Wyre Forest 0.0967 98,000 33 2,970 78,140 2,368 Wyre 0.0974 110,300 50 2,206 86,061 1,721 Torridge 0.0975 65,600 36 1,822 52,236 1,451 Adur 0.1068 61,300 29 2,114 48,736 1,681 Barrow-In-Furness 0.1148 56,750 36 1,576 53,306 1,481 Havant 0.1174 46,000 38 1,211 95,103 2,503 Erewash 0.1203 112,100 47 2,385 86,616 1,843

131

Comparison Data – Proposed Size of East Suffolk

Population Area Population Electors (includes (Square No. of per Area per per Area Type non voters) km) Cllrs Councillor Councillor Electors Councillor East Suffolk District 241,300 1,261.9 55 4,387 22.94 193,482 3,518 Waveney District 116,200 370.4 48 2,421 7.72 92,485 1,927 Suffolk Coastal District 125,100 891.5 42 2,979 21.23 100,997 2,405

District St Edmundsbury Borough 112,500 657.0 45 2,500 14.60 82,737 1,839 Mid Suffolk District 99,600 871.1 40 2,490 21.78 79,883 1,997 District Ipswich Borough 133,384 39.4 48 2,779 0.82 94,408 1,967 Forest Heath District 63,700 377.7 27 2,359 13.99 40,095 1,485 Babergh District 89,200 595.2 44 2,027 13.53 71,685 1,667

(London Borough London of) Bexley Borough 242,100 60.6 63 3,843 0.96 173,983 2,762 (London Borough London of) Camden Borough 241,100 21.8 54 4,465 0.40 154,581 2,863 Southampton Unitary 253,651 72.8 48 5,284 1.52 163,015 3,396 (Borough of) Milton Keynes Unitary 255,700 308.6 57 4,486 5.41 189,986 3,333 Northumberland Unitary 315,300 5,013.0 67 4,706 74.82 235,556 3,516 District Allerdale Borough 96,700 1,241.0 56 1,727 22.16 72,738 1,681 Breckland District District 133,986 1,035.1 49 2,734 21.12 104,479 2,132 East Riding (Yorks) Unitary 336,685 2,479.0 67 5,025 37.00 260,403 3,887 Wiltshire Unitary 435,000 3,485.0 98 4,439 35.56 361,567 3,689 Central Bedfordshire Unitary 274,000 715.7 59 4,644 12.13 205,961 3,491 South Oxfordshire District 137,400 678.5 36 3,817 18.85 104,203 2,895 Vale of White Horse District 126,700 578.6 38 3,334 15.23 94,762 2,494 (Borough of) District Great Yarmouth Borough 98,700 67.2 39 2,531 1.72 72,885 1,869 East Cambridgeshire District 87,300 251.5 39 2,238 6.45 64,701 1,659

Comparative to East Suffolk proposals Largest of those being compared Smallest of those being compared

132

Appendix D Number of Seats – Current and Future Position APPENDIX D

COMMITTEE PLACES + WORKING GROUPS

SCDC WDC East Suffolk MPB Recommendation Committee No of seats Committee No of seats Committee No of seats Full Council 42 Full Council 48 Full Council 55 Cabinet 9 Cabinet 9 (+ 5 Deputies) Cabinet 10 Simultaneous 18 Simultaneous 18 Cabinet (SCDC + Cabinet (SCDC + WDC) WDC) Audit & 11* Audit & 7* Audit & Governance 9* Members suggested a single Audit and Governance Governance Committee Governance Committee of 9 seats would Committee Committee provide adequate representation for this function Licensing & 11* Licensing 15* Licensing & Health 11* Members suggested a single Licensing and Health Committee Committee Health Committee of 11 seats would Committee provide adequate representation for this function Licensing & 3 (+ 2 substitutes Licensing & Health - (Potentially covered by Community Health Sub where possible) Sub Committee Partnership Board) Committee Planning 13* Planning 13* Planning Committee 11 (x3) = 33* Members discussed whether the Planning Committee Committee (x3 – North, Central Committee function should be serviced by and South) one committee covering the whole of the east Suffolk area, or whether there should be 2 or 3 committees covering different parts of the new district. It was suggested that one committee would provide for more consistent decision-making across the district and would ensure that decisions were made fairly for all residents, however it would not necessarily be locally accessible to residents and residents may

133

SCDC WDC East Suffolk MPB Recommendation feel that decisions about local matters were being made by a group of members that are not familiar with the needs and concerns of their area. It was therefore suggested that multiple committees would enable local decision-making, and that the preference would be for 3 committees covering the north, central, and south areas of the new district rather than 2 committees covering the north and south, more or less along the current SCDC and WDC boundaries, which would be in contradiction to the creation of a new single Council area. It was suggested that this model of 3 committees would need to be managed in such a way that tests for consistency were applied so that residents could expect the same decision on a planning matter no matter where in the district, and by which committee, their decision was made. It was suggested that 11 seats in each committee would adequately service this function. Scrutiny 13* Overview & 13* Scrutiny Committee 7 (x2) = 14* Members discussed the need for the Committee Scrutiny (x2 – Internal and scrutiny function to be delivered by a small Committee External) and focussed group with expertise in scrutinising decisions and processes. It was noted that the scrutiny committee could, and would, often bring in other officers with specific detailed knowledge of service areas, but that they did not need to form part of the core scrutiny group. Members considered the benefit of having 2 separate scrutiny committees, 1 for internal activity and 1 for external activity, and decided that 134

SCDC WDC East Suffolk MPB Recommendation 7 seats on each committee would provide a large enough group to allow for absence and ensure a quorum was available, but would be small enough to provide a streamlined and effective scrutiny function. Joint 6* Joint 6* Appointments 6* Appointments Appointments Committee Committee Committee (SCDC + WDC) (SCDC+WDC) Enabling 11* Local Plan 11 (2 Cabinet Members + Task 20 (some Members discussed the need for task Communities Working Group Chairman of Planning Groups/Working activities could groups to be retained to focus on specific Task Group Committee + 1 Planning Groups: potentially be areas such as Sizewell C that affect a Committee Member +  Enabling absorbed by particular part of the new district and Broads Authority Communities Community require certain specialist local knowledge. Representative + East Task Group Partnership Suffolk Partnership  Local Plan Boards) Representative + 5 other Working Group Members)  Policy Policy 13* Housing Benefits 6 (Cabinet Member + 1 Development Development & Tenant Services Overview & Scrutiny Task Group Task Group Consultation Committee Member + 4  Housing Benefits Group other Members) & Tenant Services Sizewell C Task 13* (+ 2 co- Member 6 (Leader of Conservative Consultation Group opted Members - Development Group + Leader of Labour Group SCC + WDC) Steering Group Group + 2 Members from  Sizewell C Task Minor Opposition parties + Group Cabinet Member + Member  Member with Special Interest) Development Planning 2 (Chairman + Lowestoft 3 (Leader + 2 Cabinet Steering Group Referral Panel Vice Chairman of Transport & Members)  Planning Referral Planning Infrastructure Panel Committee) Prospectus  Lowestoft Steering Group Transport and Housing 4 (Leader + 2 Civic Memorabilia 7 (Deputy Leader + Cabinet Infrastructure Programme Cabinet Group Member + 2 Conservative 135

SCDC WDC East Suffolk MPB Recommendation Board Members + Group Members + Labour Prospectus Cabinet Member Group Leader + Labour Steering Group for WDC) Group Member + 1 Member  Housing from the other Opposition Programme Parties) Board Planning Service 4 (Leader + East Suffolk 5 (Deputy Leader + 2  Civic Delivery Board Cabinet Member Merger Working Conservative Group Memorabilia + Chairman and Group Members + 2 Labour Group Group Vice Chairman Members + 1 Member from  Planning Service for Planning the other Minority Delivery Board Committee) Opposition Parties)  Enabling Enabling 4 (Leader + 3 Broadband Broadband Cabinet Programme Programme Members) Board Board Member 5 (4 Members of Member 5 (3 Members of the Programme the Majority Programme Majority Group + 2 Board Group + 1 Board Members of the Opposition Member of the Parties) Opposition) Community Potentially 6 or 7 (made up of the local ward Councillors for Partnership Boards CPB’s that designated area) to cover the whole (CPB’s) East Suffolk area, with some delegated decision-making for statutory duties as well (Area Committees) as a forum for external partners and organisations to meet and share information, and to work together on local initiatives. See item 7.15 in the report. Total 182 seats Total 177 seats Total 158 seats (includes 55 Full Council and 10 Cabinet) *political balance applies

136

EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

SCDC WDC East Suffolk Outside Body No of seats Outside Body No of seats Outside Body No of seats Aldeburgh Community & 1 (Cabinet Member) A47 Alliance 3 (Leader + 2 Sports Trust Cabinet Members) Anglia Revenues 3 (Cabinet Member + Anglia Revenues 3 (Cabinet Member Anglia Revenues 3 (Cabinet Member + Members considered Partnership Joint 2 substitutes (Leader + Partnership Joint + 2 substitutes Partnership Joint 2 substitutes (Leader the need for one seat Committee Cabinet Member)) Committee (Leader + Cabinet Committee + Cabinet Member)) to be filled on the Member)) ARP Board.

Association of Suffolk 1 (Elected Member) Coastal East Partnership 1 (Cabinet Member) Representation on Estimated at 70 Museums outside bodies to be overall based on District Councils’ 1 (Leader) Disablement Information 1 (Cabinet Member) determined by new current no of seats Network & Advice Line Council for SCDC and WDC Disability Advice Service 1 (Elected Member) Disability Forum 1 (Cabinet Member) Management Committee Suffolk Coastal Disability 1 (Elected Member) East Suffolk Partnership 2 (Leader + Cabinet Forum Member) East Suffolk Partnership - 2 (Leader + Cabinet Great Yarmouth & 1 (Cabinet Member) Board Member) Waveney System Leadership Partnership Greenways Countryside 2 (Elected Members) Lowestoft Flood Risk 3 (Leader + 2 Project Joint Advisory Management Board Cabinet Members) Committee Ipswich Policy Area 1 (Cabinet Member) Lowestoft Rising 1 (Cabinet Member) Board Felixstowe Forward 2 (Cabinet Members) Norfolk & Waveney 1 (Cabinet Member) Sponsor Group Sustainability & Transformation Plan Stakeholder Board Kyson (River Deben) 1 (Cabinet Member) Primary Care 1 (Cabinet Member) Fairways Committee Commissioning Committee

Landguard Partnership 1 (Elected Member) Responsible Authority 1 (Cabinet Member) 137

SCDC WDC East Suffolk Committee Group Leiston Leisure Centre 2 (Elected Members) Safer Suffolk Fund Grant 1 (Cabinet Member) Joint Co-ordinating Panel Committee Safer Suffolk Grant Panel 1 (Cabinet Member) Sentinel Leisure Trust 1 (Cabinet Member) Partnership Board Leiston Town Athletic 1 (Elected Member) Southwold Harbour Lands 4 (Leader + 3 Sports Ground Executive Joint Committee Cabinet Members) Committee Local Government 1 (Cabinet Member Suffolk Coastal District 1 (Cabinet Member) Association – Coastal for Coastal Council Sizewell Task Issues Special Interest Management) Group Group Joint Local Advisory 6 (Leader + 5 Elected Suffolk Health & 2 (Cabinet Member Group (Sizewell C) Members) Wellbeing Board + SCDC Cabinet Member as substitute) Suffolk Health & 1 (Cabinet Member) Suffolk Pension Board 1 (Cabinet Member) Wellbeing Board East Suffolk Travellers’ 1 (Elected Member) Suffolk Waste 1 (Cabinet Member) Association Management Strategy Group Suffolk Waste 1 (Cabinet Member) Waveney Business Forum 2 (Leader + Cabinet Partnership Member) Local Government 1 (Cabinet Member) Waveney Community 2 (Cabinet Association Special Safety Partnership Members) Interest Group – NuLeAF Merchant Navy Welfare 1 (Elected Member) Waveney Norse 1 (Cabinet Member) Board Committee Partnership Board Places for People / 1 (Cabinet Member) Suffolk Coastal Partnership Board Leiston Together 2 (Cabinet Members)

Sizewell A and B 1 (Cabinet Member) 138

SCDC WDC East Suffolk Stakeholder Group Sparsity Partnership for 1 (Cabinet Member) Authorities Delivering Rural Services Suffolk Coast Forum 1 (Cabinet Member) Suffolk Coast and Heaths 2 (Cabinet Member + AONB Joint Advisory Elected Member) Committee/ Partnership East Suffolk Internal 4 (Elected Members) Drainage Board Suffolk Coastal 3 (Cabinet Member + Community Safety 2 Elected Members) Partnership Suffolk Coastal Norse 1 (Cabinet Member) Partnership Board Suffolk County Council 1 (Elected Member) Joint Flood Risk Management Scrutiny Panel Suffolk Village of the 3 (Elected Members) Year Competition Organising Joint Committee Judging Panel Total 50 seats Total 35 seats Total 70 (est.)

NON EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

SCDC WDC East Suffolk Outside Body No of seats Outside Body No of seats Outside Body No of seats East of England Local 1 (Leader) Active Waveney Sports Partnership 2 (Cabinet Member + Representation on outside Estimated at 40 overall Government Association Elected Member) bodies to be determined by based on current no of seats Leaders’ Board new Council for SCDC and WDC

139

SCDC WDC East Suffolk Felixstowe Dock Local 3 (Elected Beccles & District Museum 1 (Elected Member) Authority Liaison Members) Committee Leiston, Saxmundham & 1 (Elected Broads Authority 1 (Elected Member) District CAB Member) Felixstowe CAB 2 (Elected Creating the Greenest County 2 (Elected Member + Members) Partnership Board Elected Member as substitute) Local Government 1 (Leader) District Councils’ Network 2 (Leader + Elected Association General Assembly Member as substitute) Assembly The Mills Charity 1 (Cabinet East Suffolk Internal Drainage 2 (Elected Members) Member) Board Joint Suffolk Police and 1 (Elected East Suffolk Travellers’ Association 1 (Elected Member) Crime Panel Member) Suffolk County Council 1 (Elected Suffolk County Council Health 2 (Elected Member + sub) Health Scrutiny Committee Member) Scrutiny Committee Fauconberge Educational Trust 1 (Elected Member) Gorleston to Lowestoft Ness 3 (Cabinet Member + Ward Coastal Strategy Review Project Members for Corton & Board Harbour) Halesworth Partnership & Blyth 1 (Elected Member) Valley Partnership

James Paget University Hospital 1 (Elected Member) NHS Foundation Trust Governors’ Council Local Government Association 2 (Leader + Deputy Leader) Local Government Association 2 (Cabinet Members) Special Interest Group on Coastal Issues Local Government Association 2 (Cabinet Members) Special Interest Group – NuLeAF Norfolk Rail Policy Group 2 (Elected Members) Pride in Beccles 1 (Elected Member) 140

SCDC WDC East Suffolk Sentinel Leisure Trust – 2 (Elected Members) Directors/Trustees Sentinel Leisure Governance Board 1 (Elected Member) Southwold Harbour & River Blyth 1 (Elected Member) Users’ Association Suffolk Coast Forum 2 (Cabinet Members) Suffolk Coast & Heaths Project 2 (Elected Members) Essex & Suffolk Water Forum 1 (East of England LGA appointment) Suffolk Flood Risk Management 2 (Elected Members) Joint Scrutiny Panel Suffolk Flood Risk Management 2 (Elected Members) Scrutiny Sub-Committee (same as above?) Suffolk Police & Crime Panel 2 (Leader + Cabinet Member) Waveney, Lower Yare & 1 (Cabinet Member) Lothingland Internal Drainage Board Waveney Norse Governance Board 1 (Elected Member) Total 11 seats Total 45 seats Total 40 (est.)

Totals:

SCDC total seats = 243 (filled by 42 members)

WDC total seats = 257 (filled by 48 members)

East Suffolk total seats = est. 268 (filled by 55 members)

141

Appendix E APPENDIX E

142

APPENDIX F

Appendix F Equality Impact Analysis Form (EqIA)

Introduction: Where appropriate, this form should be completed by the service team, lead officer or author in consultation with other officers, Members and service users. Additionally, consideration of the effect and impact of the Council’s policies, projects, initiatives or actions on all of its communities, should ensure that the Council promotes equality and access to services (taking positive action where possible) and does not impose any negative impact on the Council’s communities or visitors.

Furthermore, service users, representational groups and partners should be consulted to inform the Equality Impact Analysis process as necessary.

Part 1 Project team (Creation of a single council for east Suffolk - Suffolk Coastal and Service conducting EqIA Waveney District Council merger proposal)

Policy / Project / Initiative Merger proposal – creating a single council for east Suffolk or Action Further assessment of specific impact of reduction in number of councillors

Date of Assessment 02/10/2017

Overview of Policy / Project / Initiative Creating a single council for east Suffolk Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) and Waveney District Council (WDC) have been working closely together since first sharing a Chief Executive in 2008. The Councils have adopted a joint East Suffolk Business Plan and share many other policies and plans. The Councils also share the vast majority of their staffing cohort, including a fully shared Senior Management Team, who deliver shared services across the two districts. The Councils are now seeking to further integrate and to become a single council for east Suffolk. This proposal was chosen from a range of options at a meeting of the Councils’ Cabinets on 14th March 2016, and was seen to be the most natural progression from the current shared services model. Members instructed officers to produce a Business Case to assess the proposal. This detailed Business Case was produced and reviewed by members at a meeting of the Council’s Cabinets on 25th July 2016. At the meeting members agreed that the proposal to create a new single council was their preferred option for future transformation, and undertook to complete a full range of consultation to seek the public’s views. This consultation was carried out between October and December 2016. On 23rd January 2017, a simultaneous meeting of the Cabinets was held to consider the feedback received and decide whether or not the councils wished to progress with the proposal and submit a request to create a new single council to the Secretary of State. It was resolved at the meeting to support the proposal to create a new single council for east Suffolk. This decision was further endorsed by each Council. Following this, the Business Case was sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government for consideration. Whilst the decision on the creation of a new council for east Suffolk is with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Councils have continued to work on the arrangements for creating a new single council. The first important piece of work undertaken was a recommendation on the preferred council size for the new council. This work was undertaken by the ‘Member Programme Board’ (MPB). The recommendation from the MPB was for a reduction in the number of councillors from the current number of 90 across the two district areas, to 55, subject to any adjustment by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). This recommendation will go to a simultaneous meeting of the Cabinets on

143

13th November 2017. An initial Equality Impact Assessment to look at the impact of the proposed creation of a new council was completed in January 2017. This initial assessment was a high level assessment of the overall impact of the proposal. It was considered that the proposal was, in broad terms, a proposal to change the governance of the two councils from two sovereign authorities to one, and that it would not have any measurable impact on service delivery owing to the fact that the councils’ services were already so greatly aligned and jointly delivered. As such, and because SCDC and WDC approach equality issues in the same way across the two councils, it was considered that there would be minimal impact in respect of the overall proposal to create a single council. The only area that might have an impact would be any changes to the governance, such as a change in the number of members, and so it was agreed to re-visit this aspect and conduct a further assessment once more detail was available on proposed changes to governance. This further Equality Impact Assessment has therefore been produced to specifically look at the impact of a reduction in the number of councillors. It considers the impact on the wider population of the two districts, the members themselves, and staff at the two councils, in addition to looking specifically at the impact on the 9 protected characteristic groups.

Key Facts: Suffolk Coastal: Suffolk Coastal covers an area of 88,938 hectares (891km2) and 53km of open coast. The area is a uniquely attractive place to live and work, and also to visit; combining a strong economy with a vibrant natural and built environment. A large part of the district is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including numerous areas of nationally and internationally important areas of natural conservation. There are a wide and varied selection of historical sites, including the Sutton Hoo Saxon burial site and the castles at Orford and Framlingham, Martello Towers and Landguard Fort at Felixstowe Waveney: Waveney is situated in north-east Suffolk and is the most easterly district in Britain. It adjoins Norfolk County, Great Yarmouth Borough and South Norfolk District Councils to the north, Mid Suffolk District Council to the west and Suffolk Coastal District Council to the south. The District covers 37,041 (370km2) hectares with a coastline of 26kms. It has a mix of urban and rural districts with Lowestoft, situated in the north-eastern corner of the District, being the largest town. There are four historic market towns (Beccles, Bungay, Halesworth and Southwold) and a number of villages. Facts breakdown – protected characteristic groups a) Age: Suffolk Coastal:

144

The total resident population estimate for Suffolk Coastal (2016) is 125,955. The male population is 61,292 (48.7%) and female population is 64,663 (51.3%)* Waveney:

Total population estimate for WDC (2016) is 116,514.

Summary: Both districts have a higher proportion of older residents compared to the overall number for Suffolk. 26.9% in Suffolk Coastal and 26.5% in Waveney of the population are 65+ compared to 22.8% for Suffolk. These estimated projected numbers have increased from the Census 2011, which identified 23% in 145

Suffolk Coastal and 24% in Waveney of the population were 65+. Also the number of residents who are 24 and below is lower in Suffolk Coastal (25.2%) and Waveney (26.3%) compared to Suffolk which has 27.6%.

ONS* = values aggregated from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) small area population estimates b) Belief / Religion / Faith

Suffolk Coastal: Religious populations in Suffolk Coastal

Faith Number % Christian 78,400 63.1 Buddhist 367 0.3 Hindu 437 0.4 Jewish 138 0.1 Muslim 539 0.4 Sikh 121 0.1 Other Religion 500 0.4 No Religion 34,348 27.6 No Response 9,448 7.6 Source: ONS Census 2011

Waveney: Religious populations in Waveney

Faith Number % Christian 69,936 60.7 Buddhist 306 0.3 Hindu 129 0.1 Jewish 63 0.1 Muslim 388 0.3 Sikh 33 0 Other Religion 515 0.4 No Religion 35,312 30.6 No Response 8,572 7.4

146

Source: ONS Census 2011

c) Socio-economic Status

 2.7% households in Suffolk Coastal and 3.1% in Waveney do not have central heating compared to 2.6% in Suffolk.

147

 1.6% households in Suffolk Coastal and 2.1% in Waveney are overcrowded compared to 2.4% in Suffolk.

Those members representing urban areas will have a smaller geographic area to represent compared to those members representing rural areas. Members in urban areas will therefore have less need to travel large distances to reach their electorate and will be able to dedicate their time to dealing with the needs of denser urban areas, and in particular those areas that are more socially deprived. Members will be able to make use of new ways of working to maximise the time they have available to deal with residents enquiries, and will be supported by the District Council to effectively sign-post residents to services to resolve their queries quickly and efficiently. Members in rural areas will have larger geographic areas to represent which traditionally would have meant more time travelling, but members will again be able to make use of new of ways of working to minimise their travel time and maximise the time available to assist residents. The new Council will seek to ensure that all residents have access to their representative through maximising the number of channels available to residents to contact members and the Council itself. There will be no change in the service provision provided by the Council from the service level provided now by the two current Councils, and as such residents both in urban and rural areas, and in those areas that are deprived, will see the same equal levels of support available to deal with their enquiries.

148 d) Disability (Physical, sensory, learning, mental and physical health

Suffolk Coastal: Waveney:

 4.5% of people living in Suffolk Coastal and 6.6% of people living in Waveney self-reported that they had very bad health or bad health, compared to 4.7% in Suffolk.

 7.9% of people in Suffolk Coastal and 10.5% in Waveney had their day-to-day activities limited a lot, compared to 8.3% in England (7.9% in Suffolk). e) Ethnicity/Race/Nationality (including Gypsy Travellers)

Suffolk Coastal:

149

Country of birth in Suffolk Coastal Usual Residents whose country of birth is: Number % England 113,319 91.2 Scotland 1,941 1.6 Wales 997 0.8 Northern Ireland 433 0.3 UK not otherwise specified 7 0 Ireland 485 0.4 EU: Member in March 2001 1,499 1.2 EU Accession countries April 2001 - March 2011 998 0.8 Other countries 4,619 3.7 Source: ONS Census 2011

Ethnic makeup of Suffolk Coastal Ethnicity Number % White - British 116,655 93.9 White - Irish 585 0.5 Gypsy 51 0 Other White 2,685 2.2 White and Black Caribbean 471 0.4 White and Black African 222 0.2 White and Asian 473 0.4 Other Mixed 347 0.3 Indian 769 0.6 Pakistani 115 0.1 Bangladeshi 145 0.1 Chinese 463 0.4 Other Asian 540 0.4 Black African 269 0.2 Black Caribbean 208 0.2 Other Black 79 0.1 Arab 57 0 Any other ethnic groups 164 0.1 Source: ONS Census 2011 150

Waveney:

Country of birth in Waveney Usual Residents whose country of birth is: Number % England 108,300 94 Scotland 1,487 1.3 Wales 775 0.7 Northern Ireland 275 0.2 UK not otherwise specified 9 0 Ireland 376 0.3 EU: Member in March 2001 1,056 0.9 EU Accession countries April 2001 - March 2011 670 0.6 151

Other countries 2,306 2 Source: ONS Census 2011  There are 8.8% of residents in SCDC and 6% of residents in WDC who country of birth is not England, compared 89.4% in Suffolk.

Ethnic makeup of Waveney Ethnicity Number % White – British 110,385 95.8 White - Irish 407 0.4 Gypsy 91 0.1 Other White 1,706 1.5 White and Black Caribbean 387 0.3 White and Black African 200 0.2 White and Asian 341 0.3 Other Mixed 287 0.2 Indian 180 0.2 Pakistani 56 0 Bangladeshi 96 0.1 Chinese 308 0.3 Other Asian 319 0.3 Black African 208 0.2 Black Caribbean 100 0.1 Other Black 61 0.1 Arab 9 0 Any other ethnic groups 113 0.1 Source: ONS Census 2011

 97.5% of SCDC households all adults have English as their main language.  98.1% of WDC households all adults have English as their main language.  96.1% of all Suffolk households all adults have English as their main language. f) Gender (including transgendered and transsexual individuals)

Suffolk Coastal: The male population is 61,292 (48.7%) and female population is 64,663 (51.3%)*

152

Total Population: Male and Females (SCDC Population Estimate 2016)

Female: 51.3% Male: 48.7% Male (61,292) Female (64,663)

Waveney: The male population is 56,424 (48.4%) and female population is 60,090 (51.6%).*

153

Total Population: Male and Females (WDC Population Estimate 2016)

Female: Male : 48.4% 51.6% Male (56,424) Female (60,090)

g) Sexual Orientation

No data available for district populations

See workforce data h) Any other groups/issues (unemployed, homeless, refugees or asylum seekers, migrant workers, rural issues)

154

Suffolk Coastal:

Waveney:

 SCDC: 21.1% have no qualifications / 29% level 4 qualifications and above*  WDC: 29.8% have no qualifications / 17.9% level 4 qualifications and above*  Suffolk: 24.3% have no qualifications / 23.5% level 4 qualifications and above*

 The number of unemployed people between April 2016 – March 2017 was 2.9% in SCDC and 5.8% in WDC compared to 4.8% in England. (Nomis, ONS Annual Population Survey)

Suffolk Coastal:

155

Waveney:

 Total claimant count rate for Suffolk Coastal is 0.6% / Waveney 3.5% compared to 1.3% for the East of England / 1.9% for England.+  SCDC: 67.3% full time / 32.7 part-time employee jobs+  WDC: 62.5% full time / 37.5 part-time employee jobs+  England: 69.5% full time / 30.5% part-time employee jobs. +

+ Extracted from Nomis (Source: ONS Business Register and Employment Survey: open access) 2015 * Extract from Suffolk Observatory (Source: ONS, Census 2011)

Suffolk Coastal:

156

Waveney:

Provision of unpaid care (% of total population, Census 2011) Waveney Suffolk Coastal England No unpaid care 88.2  88.1  89.8 1 to 19 hrs unpaid care a week 7.1  8.3  6.5 20 to 49 hrs unpaid care a week 1.5 1.3 1.4

157

50 or more hrs unpaid care a week 3.2  2.3  2.4

i) Pregnancy & Maternity (or Paternity)

 Under 16 conceptions (2013-2015): Conception rate per 1,000 women – Suffolk 3.2 / Suffolk Coastal 2.0 / Waveney 2.4

 Under 18 conceptions (2015): Conceptions rate per 1,000 women – Suffolk 15.6 / Suffolk Coastal 12.9 / Waveney 20.0 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityra tes/datasets/conceptionstatisticsenglandandwalesreferencetables

Part 2 of this form is to be used as a prompt for considering the wider and specific impacts on our communities of any policy, action or decision taken.

Part 2 Positive impacts The proposed creation of a new single council for east Suffolk is driven by a desire to ensure that the residents of the east Suffolk area are in the best position in future years, protecting services from cuts, and ensuring that services are streamlined and effective. Both SCDC and WDC recognise the positive impact on service delivery, and the financial benefit, that working closely in partnership has achieved so far. The creation of a new single council would complete this process and enable the remaining savings to be achieved from aligning services, rationalising contracts, removing duplication of processes (in particular streamlining the governance model to a single system) and realising efficiency savings from staff time.

As such, the creation of a single council is likely to benefit all residents living in the two districts through an increase in staff capacity and the financial savings that would be realised. Having a larger council will also result in a bigger voice for the new council within the sector and with central Government; this will benefit the council, the local area, and residents, bringing greater focus to east Suffolk.

Further, it will also benefit the staff employed by the two councils by freeing up their capacity, enabling them to target their resources more effectively. Currently staff are required to service meetings for two separate sovereign councils and to take all decisions, even on jointly agreed policies and procedures, to both sets of members for approval. This removal of duplication will have huge benefits for the new council and its workforce, enabling staff resource to be directed at more important priorities for the new council.

In relation particularly to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors for the new council, this reduction has been suggested following detailed analysis of the optimum council size for the new council by a cross-party Member Programme Board (MPB). This analysis was carried out with due regard to the guidance provided by the LGBCE. The MPB considered the strategic leadership model of the new authority, the governance structure of the new council, representation on other internal and external boards/committees, and the important representational role of members in the community.

The MPB suggested that, following full consideration of all elements, a reduction in the number of members from 90 to 55 would still enable suitable representation for a governance structure for the new council and suitable representation for residents in the area. This preferred number would however be subject to adjustment by the LGBCE, in particular in relation to any new proposed warding pattern for the council.

With a new, single, streamlined governance structure in place, residents would see a benefit from the alignment of meetings, only having one Full Council meeting for example to make decisions on a single policy, rather than that single policy having to go to two separate meetings as it does now.

The members of the new council will be provided with a clearly defined ‘job description’ for a councillor in the new authority. This will set out the requirements of the post and will help both new and experienced members to understand the remit of the new role and the new ways of working that will be available to 158 members to assist with fulfilling the requirements. These new ways of working may include greater use of social media to interact with residents, and greater use of other online contact such as email, video- conferencing etc. Members will receive full training and support to ensure they are comfortable with the use of the technology and understand the rules and policies in place.

As a result of its Member Development Programme and excellent support to Councillors, WDC already has a gold standard Charter Plus Award for Elected Member Development. Charter Plus for Elected Member Development is awarded to Councils for their constant commitment to Councillors' learning and development needs. Members at WDC already benefit from the high level of support and training offered through the Member Development Programme. The new council for east Suffolk would seek to retain this award and would provide the same high level of training for its members across the eat Suffolk area. This would be a positive impact for members of the new council and also for residents receiving support and advice.

Partner organisations working with the two councils are also likely to see a positive impact. This will be felt more widely through their interactions with the council – having a single authority to contact and dealing with east Suffolk as one area, rather than still having to consider it as two. This benefit will also extend to other regional and national bodies the councils have a relationship with, in addition to other local stakeholders such as businesses, parish/town councils, and of course, residents. In relation particularly to the proposed reduction in the number of councillors for the new council, it is not anticipated that there will be any adverse affect for partner organisations.

The proposals will not directly affect service delivery or the access that customers have to services. There are no proposed changes to frontline staffing, or to the provision of local offices.

ComRes telephone polling In order to establish residents’ views on the proposal, the councils engaged independent polling company ComRes to conduct a survey of 1,000 residents across the east Suffolk area, with 500 of those surveyed being from each of the current district areas. This telephone polling was conducted in addition to open public consultation.

It was ensured that the sample of 1,000 residents was representative of the demographics of both council areas, ensuring a statistically valid sample by age, gender, ethnicity, economic status, and social grade. This was particularly valuable in gathering the views of a cross-section of residents from the east Suffolk area. It can often be the case that the responses received to open public consultation are from a narrower group, and it was important to understand the view of all resident groups, including those of protected characteristic groups. Some of these residents may not always be aware of council consultations, or engage with the council ordinarily, but they were contacted directly through this polling exercise. General

Results of the ComRes polling: When provided with some very brief information about the proposed creation of a single District Council for East Suffolk, a majority of adults in Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils said they were favourable towards the proposal (57%) – more than twice the proportion who said they were unfavourable (22%). Indeed, local residents were twice as likely to say they were very favourable than very unfavourable towards the proposal (16% vs 8%).

This favourability towards the proposal did not differ significantly by subgroup, with a majority of adults from all key demographic groups (age, gender, social grade, ethnicity and working status) saying they are favourable towards the proposal.

Almost all adults living in Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Council areas said that it was important that the new Council sustained the delivery of important services to local people (96%). This is a key driver for the proposal.

Three in five adults said that maintaining low rates of council tax was a very important objective for the new single Council (59%). The proposal will have a very low impact on residents in terms of changes in council tax

159 precept levels, as the difference between council tax in both council areas is minimal.

Reduction in number of members

When asked what impact they thought a reduction in the overall number of Councillors would have on how their Council is run, local residents were most likely to say this would make no difference at all (40%). Similar proportions said this will have a positive (29%) and negative (25%) impact.

There were no significant differences in opinion on this topic by demographic sub-group, with the perceived impact of the reduction in the number if councillors broadly consistent among different age groups.

However, adults who were unfavourable towards the proposal in general were significantly more likely than those who said they were favourable to say that the reduction in the number of councillors would have a negative impact on how the Council is run (52% v 17%). This suggests that for those who do not approve of the proposed creation of a new single District Council, the reduction in the number of local representatives is an important factor.

This may be explained by a difference in the way people access services, between those who regularly contact their councillor, and those who tend to access services directly through the council and do not have much councillor contact. Members of the MPB assessing the workload of a member commented that a significant proportion of the residents in their ward do not contact them direct, and that therefore an increase in the number of residents in their area would not have a dramatic effect on the number of enquiries they receive. Overall it was felt that councillors could reasonably take on more electors per ward and be able to represent those electors without any adverse impact to residents, and as such that a reduction in the number of councillors would have no negative impact.

Perceived impact on individual demographic groups

When those who were surveyed were asked about the impact of the proposal on specific groups, more than a third of residents said that the impact of the proposal would make no difference to any of the groups tested (people with disabilities, the young, the old, people from minority ethnic groups, people of different religions/faiths). Indeed, more than half of residents believed that the proposal would make no difference to people from ethnic minority groups and people of minority faiths or religions - the most of any of the groups tested (52% and 57% respectively).

160

Channel Shift The 2015 Customer Service PESTLE analysis informed the development of Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Councils joint Access & Customer Strategy.

This recognised a number of opportunities and challenges ahead including reductions in revenue support grant, technological advancements, welfare reform changes and how customers were moving towards more self-service and digital ways of doing business.

Since 2015, SCDC and WDC have embarked on a channel shift drive, which has seen the following outcomes:

• Increase in automated telephone payments • Increase in web payments • Reduction in footfall (approx. 25,000 fewer visitors to the customer service centre) • Reduction in telephone payments taken by staff • Increase in customers registered for Council self-service and paperless billing • Reduction in customers paying bills by cheque • 70% of residents paying their Council Tax by Direct Debit • Cash and non-cash savings realised

This continuous improvement drive has had the following benefits for stakeholders, which include:-

Customers:  Channel shift and demand management initiatives have freed up capacity to enable our employees to provide more support to vulnerable customers or those with more complex needs  Respond to the rollout of full service Universal Credit by providing an efficient and effective assisted digital service  Due to the rural geographical location of east Suffolk front facing services are co-located at Beccles, Felixstowe and Woodbridge libraries, which support the Customer Service Centre in Lowestoft. This innovative approach has created community hubs for customers, Cllr’s and other stakeholders to access services and information  The Councils have funded customer access terminals for Beccles, Lowestoft and Felixstowe CAB’s  Technological advancements have made services and information more easily accessible with notable successes including:- o Fully responsive joint website o According to GovRank some of the highest national scores for social media engagement and the highest in the County

A successful six month customer-led mystery shopping programme was also conducted to measure customer satisfaction across different communication channels, and this independent assessment identified that performance was good.

Stakeholders: Councillors, partner organisations and other stakeholders now have a range of ways to easily contact or signpost residents for support from the Council through a range of accessible communication channels. This enables councillors, when dealing with resident enquiries, to signpost more residents to easy-to-use council services which they can access themselves. It also frees up front-facing staff to assist members in resolving cases where one-to-one support is required. This results in greater efficiency for council members in dealing with enquiries and helps to mitigate the impact of any proposed reduction in the number of members. The range of accessible communication channels includes:-

• social media • telephone • email • website; including self-service portal • automated services • letter 161

• face to face to face

Negative impacts Groups Concerns/Likely Impact Action a Age (Includes safeguarding Impact on young people or older What positive action will be issues) people either preventing or taken to promote their access restricting access to services. and inclusion

Facts:  No specific adverse impact General population identified for young or older  Continue to provide services SCDC has a lower than people as currently - members able average population of 20-49 to direct residents’ enquiries year olds, and a higher than  This includes younger and older to well sign-posted services. average population of 50+ staff employed by the councils year olds.  Channel shift project ensures  A reduction in the number of that one-to-one support is WDC has a lower than councillors will increase the available for those who need average population of 25-54 number of residents each it, and easy-to-use year olds, and a higher than member represents. This may online/telephone services are average population of 55+ increase the job role of a available for those who are year olds. councillor and may impact the happy to access services ability of young people, who are independently Employees more likely to be in full time The highest proportion of work/education, to take on the  For older residents/those who employees falls within the 45- role. may be less likely to access 54 age band. services online or by phone, they will still be able to contact their local councillor through traditional methods such as by letter and through public surgeries

 Younger residents/those who access services online or by phone are likely to see an increase in the number of, and variety of, contact methods available to get in touch with their elected representative including email, social media, online forums etc., as new ways of working are utilised.

 This change in the role of a councillor should enable more efficient contact with residents and mitigate the effect of an increase in the number of residents each councillor represents b Belief/Religion/Faith Impact on people with different What positive action will be beliefs or holding a different faith, taken to promote their access either preventing or restricting and inclusion 162

Facts: access to services. General population 63.1% of SCDC residents give  No specific adverse impact  Members will continue to their religion as Christian. The identified for people with engage with groups through next highest faith groups are different beliefs/religion/faith established channels, utilising Hindu and Muslim with 0.4% the contacts and expertise of of residents for each. 27.6% the East Suffolk Communities say they have no religion, Team, via local groups and with 7.6% declining to give a forums, to ensure inclusion response. and engagement

60.7% of WDC residents give their religion as Christian. The next highest faith groups are Buddhist and Muslim with 0.3% of residents for each. 30.6% say they have no religion, with 7.4% declining to give a response.

Employees 26% of employees are Christian, with the vast majority (44%) either not declaring or “prefer not to disclose”. 16% disclose themselves as having “no religion” and 7% “not specified”. c Socio-economic Status Impact on people who would What positive action will be otherwise be excluded due to taken to promote their access Facts: affordability and access issues. and inclusion e.g. concessions General population SCDC: 21.1% have no  No specific adverse impact qualifications identified for different socio-  Continue service provision as economic groups currently - members able to WDC: 29.8% have no direct residents’ enquiries to qualifications  Low impact of council tax well sign-posted services. equalisation across the council The number of unemployed areas  Channel shift project ensures people between April 2016 – that one-to-one support is March 2017 was 2.9% in  No impact on service delivery - available for those who need SCDC and 5.8% in WDC customers who access benefits it, and easy-to-use compared to 4.8% in England. services/other support services online/telephone services are will see no change in service available for those who are Total claimant count rate for delivery happy to access services SCDC is 0.6%, and for WDC is independently 3.5%, compared to 1.3% for  No impact on location of the East of England and 1.9% service provision – customer  Residents who may be unable for England. services support and dedicated to afford to travel to meet officer support continues to be with their representative at SCDC: 67.3% are in full time available from the same public surgeries will be able to employment, and 32.7% in locations around the two make use of various other part-time employee jobs district areas (Lowestoft, methods of contact, including Melton, Beccles, Woodbridge, for example social media, WDC: 62.5% are in full time and Felixstowe). email or telephone. 163

employment, and 37.5% in part-time employee jobs  Customer contact points in  Meetings will, where possible, libraries located near to job be live-streamed on the 2.7% households in Suffolk centre services, providing internet so that residents are Coastal and 3.1% in Waveney joined up accessible services. able to watch meetings online do not have central heating rather than having to travel to compared to 2.6% in Suffolk. offices in Lowestoft or Melton

1.6% households in Suffolk  Meetings will also aim to be Coastal and 2.1% in Waveney held at times which fit with are overcrowded compared trains arriving at Lowestoft to 2.4% in Suffolk. and Melton to enable travel by public transport where possible d Disability (Physical, sensory, Impact on people with a disability What positive action will be learning, mental and physical preventing or restricting access to taken to promote their access health services. and inclusion

Facts:  No specific adverse impact  Members will continue to General population identified for people with engage with groups through 4.5% of people living in physical/sensory/ established channels such as Suffolk Coastal and 6.6% of learning/mental/ disability forums, utilising the people living in Waveney self- physical disabilities contacts and expertise of the reported that they had very East Suffolk Communities bad health or bad health, Team. compared to 4.7% in Suffolk.  The new council will continue 7.9% of people in Suffolk to engage with residents Coastal and 10.5% in through local groups and Waveney say that their day- forums, to ensure inclusion to-day activities are limited a and engagement lot, compared to 8.3% in England (7.9% in Suffolk).  Residents who may have difficulty/be unable to travel Employees to meet with their 5% of employees at SCDC and representative at public WDC declare that they have a surgeries will be able to make disability. use of various other methods of contact, including for example social media, email or telephone.

 Meetings will be live- streamed so that residents are able to watch meetings online rather than having to travel to offices in Lowestoft or Melton e Ethnicity/Race/ Impact on people from a black, What positive action will be Nationality (including Gypsy minority and ethnic group taken to promote their access Travellers) preventing or restricting access to and inclusion services e.g. through isolation, hard Facts: to reach issues and/or language  Members will continue to General population barriers. engage with groups through There are 8.8% of residents in established channels, utilising SCDC and 6% of residents in  No specific adverse impact the contacts and expertise of 164

WDC whose country of birth identified for people of different the East Suffolk Communities is not England ethnicity/race/nationality Team.

93.9% of those in SCDC give  The new council will continue their ethnicity as White to engage with residents via British, 95.8% in WDC. local groups and forums, to ensure inclusion and 97.5% of adults in households engagement in SCDC, and 98.1% in WDC, have English as their main  The new council will continue language. to provide Language Line services for residents Employees 70% of employees are white (64% SCDC / 75% WDC). f Gender (including Impact on people with a different What positive action will be transgendered and gender preventing or restricting taken to promote fair access and transsexual individuals) access to services e.g. recruitment inclusion of either male or female applicants. Facts: General population  No specific adverse impact  Member recruitment SCDC: The male population is identified for people with a continues to encourage both 61,292 (48.7%) and female different gender male and female councillors population is 64,663 (51.3%) to take up office

WDC: The male population is 56,424 (48.4%) and female population is 60,090 (51.6%)

Employees 56% Female, 44% Male. A higher proportion of female employees at SCDC (61% compared to WDC 52%) g Sexual Orientation Impact on people who are Lesbian, What positive action will be Gay, bi-sexual and Transgender taken to promote fair access and Facts: preventing or restricting access to inclusion General population services No data available by district  No adverse impact identified for Employees people of different sexual 45% of employees categorise orientation themselves as heterosexual/straight h Any other groups/issues Impact on any other What positive action will be (unemployed, homeless, groups/individuals preventing or taken to promote fair access and refugees or asylum seekers, restricting access to services inclusion migrant workers, rural issues)  No specific adverse impact  Continue to operate services Facts: identified for any other in local offices around the Both SCDC and WDC cover demographic groups district (Beccles, Woodbridge, large areas of rural land with Felixstowe) and not just at HQ some isolated rural  Some concerns raised that the buildings communities proposal will result in a  Rural areas will still benefit distancing of the council from from their own local ward SCDC: 21.1% have no the more rural areas of the members with a direct 165

qualifications / 29% level 4 district interest in their immediate qualifications and above local area WDC: 29.8% have no  Some misconceptions around  The potential creation of qualifications / 17.9% level 4 the councils moving to a single ‘Community Partnership qualifications and above shared office in either Lowestoft Boards’, a form of area or Melton and that services committee, would ensure that The number of unemployed would be less accessible rural areas are still people between April 2016 – represented by their own March 2017 was 2.9% in  Some concerns that a reduction local decision-making and SCDC and 5.8% in WDC in the number of councillors information sharing group compared to 4.8% in England. would result in rural  New ways of working will be communities being less engaged implemented to ensure that Total claimant count rate for with the council/less able to residents do not feel SCDC is 0.6%, and for WDC is make contact with their local distanced from a larger 3.5%, compared to 1.3% for ward councillor(s) authority - councillors will be the East of England and 1.9% available to engage with for England.  Some concerns from local residents through various town/parish councils that ward channels such as social media, SCDC: 67.3% full time / 32.7 councillors would not be able to email, and through web-cast part-time employee jobs attend local meetings as easily if meetings so that residents in WDC: 62.5% full time / 37.5 they had a larger area to cover rural areas do not need to part-time employee jobs travel to district council offices to engage with their representatives/the decision- making process  In relation to specific committees (such as Planning), arrangements will be put in place for local committees to serve smaller geographical areas, ensuring that local residents have access to important decisions affecting their area  Consideration will be given to the most appropriate structures under the single authority to ensure that the voices of all communities are heard i Pregnancy & Maternity (or Impact on pregnant woman and What positive action will be Paternity) their partners e.g. recruitment and taken to promote fair access and entitlements within the workplace, inclusion Facts: or impact of policy or action on Under 16 conceptions (2013- citizens who may be at risk of an 2015): Conception rate per unwanted pregnancy e.g. teenage 1,000 women - pregnancy issues, preventing or Suffolk 3.2, SCDC 2.0, WDC restricting access to services due to 2.4 their status.

Under 18 conceptions (2015):  None Conceptions rate per 1,000 women – Suffolk 15.6, SCDC 12.9, WDC 20.0 Part 3 a Is the policy, project, initiative or action  No 166

subject to equality monitoring? (e.g. community mapping or data collecting to inform the policy, project, initiative or action to be taken or reviewing effectiveness once implemented on particular community groups) b If yes, how is the data collected/disseminated and where will it be discussed? c Has the Lead Officer consulted with any (The East Suffolk Communities Team and Local Strategic groups or sought information from them? Partnerships are in regular contact with minority groups What are the sources of data to inform and their Community Leaders and can assist with this Policy? engagement and consultation requirements as and when necessary)  Open public consultation held to ask residents views about the proposal to create a new single council. This consultation was promoted through the East Suffolk Communities Team and emails were sent out to all local groups/forums seeking responses  An independent telephone poll of a representative sample of 1,000 residents across east Suffolk was commissioned. This survey ensured that quotas were met to give a statistically valid response that is representational of the demographics in the east Suffolk area.  As part of the telephone poll, residents were asked specifically about the impact of the proposal on protected characteristic groups, and about the impact of a reduction in the number of members  Councillors of the Member Programme Board (a cross- party Programme Board of 10 members, 5 from each authority) have considered the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) guidance on determining council size  Using this guidance they have developed a preferred council size number that will service the requirements of the new council in terms of governance and decision- making, and will provide suitable levels of representation for the residents of the new council area  This preferred number will be recommended to the Cabinet of each authority, who will decide on the final preferred number to be communicated to the DCLG  The preferred number will be assessed by the DCLG and the LGBCE to ensure they are happy that it is reasonable and that it satisfies the key criteria set out in their guidance

Part 4 a Languages (Does the information contained within this form need to be presented in a different language or type (e.g. ‘easy read’)? Does language present a barrier when considering this corresponding policy, project, initiative or action)  The Councils offer translation and interpretation services through Language Line

Part 5 Any changes proposed (including any comments from document owner) (As a result of completing this EqIA has the Author, Service Team, Project Manager etc made any changes or adjustments to the Policy / Project / Initiative or Action and if so record here those changes.)

167

 None to record

Part 6 Name Date Author, Service Manager, Project Manager, Head of Service, Elected Member, Director as October appropriate: 2017

Kelly Wigley, Project Officer

Hilary Slater, Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Nick Khan, Strategic Director

Stephen Baker, Chief Executive

168

Employee Demographics - Workforce Profile: Suffolk Coastal Waveney Grand Suffolk Coastal Waveney Grand Ethnic Origin District Council District Council Total District Council District Council Total Black or Black British 1 1 0% 0% 0%

Mixed 4 4 0% 1% 1%

Not Stated 1 2 3 0% 0% 0%

White 203 319 522 64% 75% 70%

(blank) 113 100 213 36% 23% 29%

Gender Female 194 223 417 61% 52% 56%

Male 123 203 326 39% 48% 44%

Considered disabled? No 172 238 410 54% 56% 55%

Not Known 1 1 0% 0% 0%

Yes 7 27 34 2% 6% 5%

(blank) 138 160 298 44% 38% 40%

Religion Agnostic 16 7 23 5% 2% 3%

Atheist 2 7 9 1% 2% 1%

Catholic 1 1 2 0% 0% 0%

Christian 84 109 193 26% 26% 26%

Humanism 1 3 4 0% 1% 1%

No religion 36 86 122 11% 20% 16%

Not specified 7 45 52 2% 11% 7%

Other 4 4 1% 0% 1%

Pagan 1 1 2 0% 0% 0%

Prefer Not to Say 4 22 26 1% 5% 3%

(blank) 161 145 306 51% 34% 41%

Sexual Orientation Bisexual 1 1 2 0% 0% 0%

Gay Man 3 3 1% 0% 0%

Gay Woman/Lesbian 1 1 2 0% 0% 0%

Heterosexual/Straight 110 228 338 35% 54% 45%

No sexuality 1 1 0% 0% 0%

Other 2 2 1% 0% 0%

Prefer Not to Say 18 26 44 6% 6% 6%

(blank) 181 170 351 57% 40% 47%

Age 1. 16-24 35 28 63 11% 7% 8%

2. 25-34 55 82 137 17% 19% 18%

3. 35-44 77 87 164 24% 20% 22%

4. 45-54 91 135 226 29% 32% 30%

5. 55-64 55 91 146 17% 21% 20%

6. 65+ 4 3 7 1% 1% 1%

Marital Status Civil Partner 3 4 7 1% 1% 1%

Cohabiting 2 3 5 1% 1% 1%

Divorced 17 15 32 5% 4% 4%

Married 116 148 264 37% 35% 36%

Prefer Not to Say 2 3 5 1% 1% 1%

Separated 3 4 7 1% 1% 1%

Single 46 78 124 15% 18% 17%

Widowed 3 4 7 1% 1% 1%

(blank) 125 167 292 39% 39% 39%

Employee Totals 317 426 743

169