A Brighter Future for and Norfolk

Proposals for Unitary Authorities from Suffolk County Council Labour Group

1 Suffolk County Council Labour Group Concept Bid for Unitary Authorities in Suffolk and Norfolk

Introduction

Suffolk and Norfolk are characterised by a number of different community types, with large sparsely populated rural areas containing small market towns and villages, and a small number of densely populated urban settlements. These different areas encompass very different communities, with contrasting aspirations and governance needs.

Suffolk and Norfolk have not been served well by the two tier council system in place since the 1970s, with various communities feeling completely disenfranchised and powerless. The location of this dissatisfaction varies with the swing of the political pendulum, but it is always evident. It is not unusual, for example, for an urban area to return not one single member of an administration that spends 80% of their council tax revenue.

Unitary authorities offer a chance to greatly improve the appropriateness of councils to the area they serve, but only if they are created on boundaries which accurately reflect the separation between rural and urban communities. This thinking is clearly supported by the Minister’s stated ambition to create effective urban unitary councils. Similarly experience locally shows that rural areas often feel that their needs are compromised by the pressing demands of addressing urban deprivation.

The Suffolk County Labour Group has earned a good reputation for their approach to both running councils and managing change. As the leading group on Suffolk for 12 years we transformed Suffolk CC into a highly rated cost effective authority, known to lead on innovation and maximise use of opportunities presented by government. We are now drawing on our collective experience to present a proposal for the effective transition of Suffolk and Norfolk to an all-unitary council model.

Our proposal takes careful note of stated government requirements and suggests creation of new authorities, which will all be affordable and competent, but will all bring decision making closer to their communities. It offers a chance to greatly enhance neighbourhood empowerment while recognising historic and natural community boundaries. It reduces the number of councils from 16 to 7. It reduces the number of councillor seats but greatly improves opportunities for councillors to work closely with their communities.

Our proposal will empower all the communities of Suffolk and Norfolk with efficient local government that is locally accountable.

2 The Concept Outline

This concept outlines the benefits of a new local government structure in Suffolk and Norfolk built around three urban unitary authorities and four rural unitary authorities. These authorities are: -

• Urban • Urban Waveney and Great Yarmouth • Urban Norwich • East Suffolk • • North Norfolk • South Norfolk

These areas provide natural economic, historical and community-based boundaries, which uniquely allow them to meet each of the Secretary of State’s outcome targets of affordability, a broad cross section of support, strategic leadership, neighbourhood empowerment and value for money services.

All the proposed new councils would be new authorities, although they would of course draw in appropriate blocks of service delivery staff from the existing district and county councils. This will give an opportunity for the new unitaries to decide on the best model of governance structure for their local communities, rather than inheriting a particular model from any existing councils.

Each of the new councils would take over the property and service asset base of the predecessor councils within their area as far as possible. Careful consideration must be given to the future use of the two county headquarters buildings, both of which are large and well located buildings expressly designed for local government use.

The Unitaries

The Ipswich authority would comprise the existing Borough Council area, with a relatively small addition to rationalise service delivery boundaries, for example extending to the natural boundary of the A14 road in the South- West of Ipswich. Inclusion of parishes such as Martlesham and Kesgrave should only be considered if these parishes express a strong wish to join Ipswich, which seems very unlikely. The population of this area is currently 130,000, but the area is experiencing rapid growth due to the economic success of the Haven gateway area, considerable immigration and the strong housing demand in this part of the region. The centre of Ipswich is undergoing a large scale of housing development on brownfield sites now.

3 The urban Waveney and Great Yarmouth authority would comprise the two parliamentary constituencies. This is slightly smaller than the two predecessor districts, which have a population of about 220,000, but would encompass the areas around and Yarmouth that are similar in character to the urban centres. The area around and in the south of Waveney (already part of the Suffolk Coastal parliamentary constituency) would sit more easily with their neighbouring rural areas. Parish and town areas such as the Fleggs, and Bungay, should be consulted to determine whether they felt more affinity to the rural or urban authority proposed.

Waveney and Great Yarmouth have both found themselves marginalised from important decision making about their future under two tier arrangements. Neither Yarmouth nor Waveney have had a single elected member on their County Cabinet for some years. This feeling of marginalisation causes particular problems: for example, when Suffolk embarked on a programme to eliminate middle schools and move to a two tier school system the consultation was seriously undermined by the remoteness and perceived unaccountability of the political drivers of the change.

Waveney and Great Yarmouth are physically close, share similar economic and environmental problems and opportunities, and have a clear common identity in many areas of existing public service delivery, such as the new PCT. The regeneration vehicle, First East, has highlighted the high level of cooperation and common interest and has been well received by local residents. Go-East regards the two districts as a single entity in numerous aspects – for example the requirement for a single housing strategy. EERA when discussing the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) was left in no doubt about the importance of treating Yarmouth and Waveney as a separate sub- region, not as a dormitory suburb of Norwich.

We are aware that Great Yarmouth and Waveney Labour Groups have submitted a concept bid for a unitary council with extensive supporting detail, and this has our full support.

Norwich has perhaps the most established claim to unitary status. We propose a unitary Norwich based on the two parliamentary constituencies, roughly the area defined by the southern bypass and the proposed northern distributor road. Norwich has a naturally buoyant economic base, but has been demonstrably held back by the imposition of a two tier local government structure in the 1970s. Until recent government-driven initiatives came into effect Norwich spent many years with a virtual freeze of investment in many public realm areas such as schools, transport, libraries and museums, with county resources prioritised to the rural area characteristic of most of Norfolk. Norwich for many years has had no representation on even the administration, let alone the cabinet of . Norwich has lost ground in competition with similar sized European cities, as any visionary leadership has lacked the resources and structure to capitalise on opportunities. With a population of 220,000 Norwich can be a strong and effective unitary city.

4

The East Suffolk unitary that we propose would comprise the existing areas of Suffolk Coastal and Mid-Suffolk districts, with parts of Babergh and Waveney. This area is characterised by agricultural rural areas with small towns and villages, and many areas of high environmental and biodiversity importance, including the AONB along much of its coastline. In this area there is frequent reference back to the virtues of the previous East Suffolk Council. Although there is no clear focal centre for this area there are well established administrative locations to serve this area which would be a competent unitary with a population of about 213,000. Separation from urban Lowestoft and Ipswich would allow a clearer focus on the environmental challenges for this area, such as the pressures of climate change on the coastal and estuarine landscape.

The West Suffolk unitary that we propose would include the districts of St Edmundsbury, Forest Heath and part of Babergh, with a population of about 231,000. There is a strong identity between the main town of and its immediate hinterland. While Lowestoft and Ipswich are distinctly urban, Bury St Edmunds has more of the character of a large market town, and common aspirations with its nearby rural population. There is also a clear cross-party political consensus in favour of a West Suffolk unitary council. The current ‘Public Service Village’ concept for redevelopment of the council office estate in Bury St Edmunds forms a perfect administrative home for the new unitary.

The North Norfolk unitary would bring together the parliamentary constituencies of North Norfolk, Broadland and North West Norfolk. These rural district areas share similar issues with a number of small towns set in an area of extensive agriculture and with many attractive tourist destinations. A unitary authority could draw together significant expertise in dealing with the particular challenges in this area, such as the sensitive management of development aspirations in attractive rural locations within commuting distance of Norwich and other employment centres. The population is 240,000.

The South Norfolk unitary would consist of the parliamentary constituencies of South Norfolk, Mid Norfolk and South West Norfolk. Again issues of development pressure and rural identity predominate here, with particular issues around transport problems and commuter housing across the whole of the proposed unitary area. This council would be able to mobilise adequate resources to protect and enhance the unique Brecks landscape which would form a large part of its area, sharing experience from the former South Norfolk district that encompasses part of the Norfolk Broads. The population is 270,000.

Should there be a strong local desire in the west of Norfolk for a separate West Norfolk unitary, composed of the western parts of our suggested North and South Norfolk unitaries, all three would still have a viable size and a practical identity.

5 Outcomes: Affordability

Currently there are a large number of council seats in Suffolk and Norfolk:

Suffolk CC - 75 Waveney - 48 Suffolk Coastal - 55 - 40 Babergh - 43 St. Edmundsbury - 45 Forest Heath – 27 Ipswich - 48

Suffolk Total - 381

Norfolk CC - 84 Norwich - 39 South Norfolk - 46 G. Yarmouth - 39 Broadland - 47 N. Norfolk - 48 King's Lynn - 62 Breckland - 54

Norfolk Total - 419

Norfolk & Suffolk Grand Total - 800

All parties are finding it difficult to recruit council candidates in adequate quantity and quality. This is evidenced by the growing number of ‘twin tracker’ members serving on two or more levels of council. While there may be different arrangements between different new councils a move to unitary authorities is likely to see a considerable reduction in the overall number of elected members. This in turn will allow a more realistic level of allowances to be paid, without increasing the taxpayer costs. This may help to encourage a wider spectrum of candidates – for many people being a councillor is something they simply cannot afford currently. Consequently women and minority groups are under-represented. County cabinet members and district leaders in particular have found that it is often impossible to be effective while remaining in additional full time employment.

Our proposal replaces 16 different councils with 7 new unitaries. Reducing the number of councils by more than half will free a considerable level of resource for use on service delivery. In some areas partnership working has started to achieve these savings, but involvement is patchy. For example, the CSD joint venture supplying finance, IT and HR services in Suffolk has only been taken up by the County Council and one district.

6 The scale of resources that can be released by moving to single tier authorities was clearly indicated in this quote from David Miliband when he was Secretary of State:

“People may not much care about these distinctions - but they're paying for multiple back offices. Seventy district councils have budgets of less than £10m. That partly explains the high proportion of cost spent on central administration - about 30% (£1bn out of a £3bn spend) compared with 3-4% in counties.” – David Miliband – LCG, 1 December 2005

The timescale for the submission of this bid does not allow a comprehensive financial case to be prepared (nor is it sought yet) but the experience of our group confirms an initial impression that the value of assets that will become surplus in the proposed changes will yield a capital sum that will more than adequately cover the one-off costs of these changes. Even in the current climate property demand and values are high in Suffolk and Norfolk, and the local government property estate is considerable. Any disposals would need to be carefully managed, however, to avoid weakening the market.

A small but significant saving from the proposed changes will be the reduction in the large amount of member and officer travel currently funded by councils. The county councils in particular operate in a centralised manner that generates high travel demand. Environmental as well as economic benefits will ensue. A further benefit of creating new authorities is the ability to challenge regressive historic practises: as an example, when Suffolk CC moved to a new headquarters building it was possible to introduce a charge for staff car parking, which is used to provide a free Ipswich shuttle bus for both staff and public to use. A successful costless green move which would have been impossible without the larger change occurring.

Outcomes: A Broad Cross Section of Support

Our concept for Suffolk and Norfolk shares a number of suggested outcomes with the ‘Banham’ proposals of the mid-1990s, which attracted considerable public and stakeholder support.

In Waveney and Ipswich, where our group members are numerically predominant, we are aware of widespread support expressed both through the media and directly to us. In Waveney and Yarmouth local businessmen have sponsored a competition for a name for the new authority, with a generous prize!

Support has been expressed in Waveney and Great Yarmouth by the two MPs, Bob Blizzard and Tony Wright, and by the two Norwich MPs, Ian Gibson and Charles Clarke, the Chamber of Commerce, the PCT and many

7 local business leaders, who welcome the clarity of engagement that a single council will allow.

We have the support of Chris Mole, MP for Ipswich, and of the Labour group on . In Ipswich the cross-party support for unitary has been repeatedly expressed. The Labour groups of Norfolk, Suffolk, Waveney, Great Yarmouth, Ipswich and Norwich have developed a mutually supportive consensus around the same proposals. Labour councillors from both counties have worked closely together for many months to prepare for an effective transition to unitary authorities in Suffolk and Norfolk. Supporters include Labour councillors who represent wards in areas unlikely to be included in our proposed urban unitary authorities.

In West Suffolk the councillors of St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath districts show ‘overwhelming support’ for a West Suffolk unitary (East Anglian Daily Times, April 9th, p10). In the same article, the County Council Leader is quoted saying: ‘within two years, Suffolk County Council will no longer exist’. This indicates the widely held view that unitary governance is both inevitable and desirable, with political differences restricted to the details of possible boundaries.

The timescale for submission of this bid does not allow us extensive consultation for potential supporters, and it must be said that local government restructuring is not a subject that enthuses everyone, but a glance at any local newspaper in recent months shows the continuing interest in a move to unitary councils.

Outcomes: Strategic Leadership

A new generation of local councils will attract a new generation of civic leaders. Being a member of a single council providing all local government services will be a step up both in challenge and in job satisfaction, and will help to concentrate voter and media attention on council performance and vision. Many councillors in the current structures are capable but give up because they are unable to deliver elector’s aspirations within the two tier system.

While creating new identities for service delivery, unitary councils do not need to threaten cherished civic and local customs and practices, many of which will continue to represent geographical and historical concepts. There will still be Lords Lieutenant in Norfolk and Suffolk, and clearly maps and addresses will not see unwelcome alteration.

We are confident that the new Authorities can and will co-operate to fulfil any residual roles that are required in the two counties. Norfolk and Suffolk Police Forces will continue to operate under their separate Constabulary identities; indeed they are already devoting resources to

8 improved cross-border operation and shared working. There is a strong tradition of partnership working for effective service delivery in this region.

Within Suffolk, our group’s experience gives us confidence that our proposed unitary boundaries reflect effectively the distinctively different communities of the county. The separation of governance between predominantly rural and predominantly urban areas will enable the new authorities to concentrate on the issues that matter most to their electorates. The smaller overall number of councils will enable a more focused contribution to be made to regional governance issues, where proposed changes risk distraction from policy setting and implementation on vital regional matters. Improving this relationship is also crucial to effective leverage of European and other funding streams.

A clear example of where unitary governance can provide a service improvement that will be both popular and environmentally beneficial is in the potential to marry the management of waste collection and disposal, currently different tier functions. Currently there is not a satisfactory link between motivation and reward in waste management, with one tier bearing increases in collection costs and another benefiting from reduced disposal costs.

Outcomes: Neighbourhood Empowerment

County and district councils in two tier areas have traditionally operated in a separate and even isolated manner. This has created a dissatisfaction in service users who are often mystified about who is responsible for what, and has allowed a culture of unseemly blame transfer to thrive. An example: who fixes that broken light? Well it depends whether it is a footway light (district) or a highway light (county); and there is a different arrangement in the next parish… . Where the two tiers are under different political control, as is frequently the case in many areas of Suffolk and Norfolk, competition and aggression between the tiers often leads to an impasse of decision making and wasted resources. A costly example was the battle in Norwich over a destructive road scheme proposal to complete an inner ring road with a heavily engineered scheme cutting through an historic and dense urban area.

Across Suffolk and Norfolk communities form groups in many different ways. There are parish and town councils, area forums, school catchment areas, watch schemes, residents associations, police safer neighbourhood team areas and many other groupings. Many groups want their councillors actively involved, but struggle to discover which councillor is appropriate to their group. Overlapping and confusingly different boundaries for county and district councillors, and different numbers of members per division create a barrier between member and community.

Our group would prefer a single member ward structure, elected four yearly, with wards of approximately 5000 electors or less, for the new unitaries. The single member can be clearly identified with their ‘patch’, giving

9 greater scope for a community leadership role (as exemplified by the new elected mayors). This also gives electors a very clear understanding of how to hold their councillor to account for the whole range of local government services. Single member wards can also make better use of member’s time – sending just one member to an area forum meeting instead of 3 or 4 frees the other members to give a better representation at other community meetings or events.

Rural parish meetings often require 2 to 4 councillors from county and district to attend, giving an onerous schedule to some rural members with large divisions. Unitary councils will mean the same number of answers from fewer voices!

Strong neighbourhood engagement requires strong leadership. That can only be achieved if the public are clear who their local government representative is. A simplification of the divisions within the new unitaries will enable that stronger leadership and will enable new neighbourhood structures to be developed that are responsive to local needs.

Within Suffolk and Norfolk there already exists a number of different community based bodies, whether they are parish councils, area forums or similar bodies. They are ready and willing to work with councillors who will be part of a simpler, more accountable and more understandable local council structure. Where parish councils or area forums or their equivalent do not currently exist or are not fit for purpose we would recommend their early creation as soon as the new unitaries are in place.

Outcomes: Value for Money Services

Different unitary solutions may provide cost savings, but this seven unitary concept will allow the new Councils to specialise in the needs of their specific areas – leading to service improvement based around policies tailored to a particular locality. The chief benefit of our unitary solution in terms of value for money public services is the new Councils’ ability to address the specific and unique needs of their areas.

The County Councils have repeatedly run in to difficulties in policy development due to the need to encompass such large and diverse areas. For example, Suffolk County Council’s recent Post Office Policy Development Panel struggled to come up with a coherent way forward in part due to the completely different problems faced by small village post offices and those in urban areas. Similarly the continued move towards choice and contestability by all political parties – most recently in individual social care budgets – has had very different implications for rural areas with a low density of service providers and urban areas with a higher density.

10 Differences around travel times and distances, and the differences in rural and urban poverty mean that distinct authorities for distinct areas will provide better value services due to their more focused point of view.

The Government’s 2007 sub-national economic development and regeneration review outlined plans for devolving various economic powers to local authorites to allow a more tailored approach to economic development in smaller areas. Suffolk divides into four broad economic areas – an Ipswich urban economic hub involved with the Haven Gateway sub-region; a Lowestoft area with strong economic ties to Great Yarmouth and, to a lesser extent, the Norwich area; a West Suffolk economy with strong ties to Cambridgeshire and an East Suffolk economy based around rural market towns, the port and coastal towns. These economic areas are defined by a number of factors, most obviously by travel-to-work flows which clearly outline the way the areas relate to each other.

Of the five main travel to work patterns originating in Forest Heath, three end in Cambridgeshire, with the remaining one ending in St. Edmundsbury. Similarly St. Edmundsbury’s travel to work patterns end disproportionately in Cambridgeshire and Forest Heath, giving a picture of a west Suffolk looking inland to to Cambridgeshire and away from the rest of Suffolk.

Waveney’s travel to work patterns are very marked. Of the top twenty travel to work flows originating or ending in Suffolk, none involve travel between Waveney and any other Suffolk District, two are Waveney to Great Yarmouth and Great Yarmouth to Waveney, four involve travel between Waveney and a Norfolk district or borough and the largest single flow out of Suffolk from a District or Borough is from Waveney to Great Yarmouth.

Our concept provides a perfect fit to these distinct economic regions allowing them to maximise the benefit of economic devolution. Within days of creation these new unitary councils will give a new confidence and responsiveness to economic development in Suffolk and Norfolk.

Conclusions

Local government in Suffolk and Norfolk needs a radical overhaul to be fit for purpose in 21st Century Britain. The inefficiencies and inequities of the current two tier system have been widely discussed. The Banham proposals in the mid 1990s were widely accepted, despite a process that encouraged councils to wage war against each other through their PR departments. Many people regret that government, by the most generous interpretation, ‘lost its bottle’ in implementing the proposals.

Our proposals have the logic and rigour of Banham, but are updated to reflect the demographic and social changes in the intervening years. Ironically

11 the rancour that characterised the debate over Banham has helped to build a determined consensus approach amongst political activists this time.

Change can never be justified unless it brings clear improvements at service delivery level. We are strongly convinced that our seven-unitary proposal clearly meets the Secretary of State’s 5 criteria, but further it will lead to a new level of public engagement in cost effective and locally accountable councils.

The case for the three new urban unitary councils is particularly strong and timely. In control of their own destiny they will be enable to flourish economically and culturally, and the existing close relationship between them will allow coherent lobbying at both national and European levels to obtain infrastructure funding and new business investment. This will benefit the whole region.

As the party with the strongest representation in all three urban areas we listen closely to our electorate. We know that they expect to have an accountable, cost effective single local council to deal with as soon as possible. Please enable us to deliver to their expectations.

Julian Swainson, Leader of the Suffolk County Labour Group April 2008

Email: [email protected] Tel: 07771 810037

There is an outline concept map on the next page.

12

The Map

13