Forest Heath DC

Forest Heath District Council Norfolk/Suffolk Local Government Structural Review 2008 – Stage 1 Response to Boundary Committee Questions on the Forest Heath East/West Suffolk two unitary authority concept Section A Overarching questions to all proponents Question 1 Why would your proposed model best address the social and economic challenges of the Suffolk county area? In particular, please consider the following issues: • The social and economic challenges of the Ipswich urban area. • Neighbourhood arrangements in Ipswich • The specific challenges faced by Felixstowe and in particular Lowestoft • Neighbourhood arrangements in Felixstowe and Lowestoft • The challenges of coastal erosion and flooding in the coastal areas of the county 1.1 The East/West model proposed by Forest Heath DC provides the strongest basis to meet the social and economic challenges of the area since it creates unitary councils that are of a scale to be viable but also of a nature and location which proactively enables the place-shaping agenda, rather than inhibiting it, which a county wide unitary model is likely to do because of its huge size. 1.2 In relation to the specific issues in the East, the authorities in that area are better placed to comment on their priorities – and that is precisely the point. The east and west unitary model provides the best basis for the future, since local priorities can be focused upon, that is simply not the case in a one-unitary county. 1.3 We believe that the challenges in the East are best served by a unitary council for the East, since the issues of employment, social development and community engagement should be shaped to the local needs. 1.4 By way of example, the future strength of the East relies on the coherent strategic development of the major ports, Felixstowe, Ipswich and Lowestoft. Issues, such as this, all point, with clarity, to an East/West solution. We refer to pages 6 and 7 of our Concept Statement for further commentary on this point. 1 of 16 1.5 Forest Health is an active partner in the Cambridge Horizons which is the partnership covering the Cambridge Growth area – the district looks much more toward Cambridge for its economic influences than it does to Ipswich. Our April 9th Concept Statement has already identified the intrinsic socio-economic differences between the west of Suffolk and the east - the Countryside and the Coast scenario. 1.6 In summary, it is far better that the issues of the eastern towns, Felixstowe, Lowestoft and Ipswich are the concern and priority of a unitary council which can focus upon them address their specific needs. The issues of the West of Suffolk are very different and should be dealt with by a separate unitary council established for that area. Question 2 What specifically are the risks of a unitary authority with a large geographical area and population and how well does your concept address these risks? 2.1 Geographical remoteness. Suffolk comprises a substantial geographic area being about 50 miles east to west and approximately 30 miles North to South. As a result, travel times between the main administrative centre (Ipswich), and large areas of the west of the county are significant, even on the most direct, dual carriageway routes. Table 1 compares approximate travel times by road between Ipswich and some key settlements within West Suffolk, with those between the same settlements and Bury St Edmunds. Travel times by public transport (where this is available) would tend to be longer, as would those to more rural locations, further from the trunk road network. 2.2 Consequently, in terms of access to key services or engaging in face to face debates, for example public speaking at committees, a Suffolk wide unitary is inherently less likely to be accessible, both operationally and democratically to all Suffolk residents. Journey times from Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds to Table 1 key settlements in West Suffolk To Ipswich To Bury St Edmunds (Minutes) (Minutes) Bury St Edmunds 40 - Newmarket 60 24 Sudbury 42 25 Haverhill 75 37 Mildenhall 63 25 (Source - AA routefinder www.theaa.com) 2.3 Political remoteness – The size of the population will mean that member representation will be a major issue. Whilst reducing the total number of councillors might be considered to be appropriate up to a point, in order to achieve some financial savings, a balance does need 2 of 16 to be struck to ensure that the electorate is adequately and properly represented by a local councillor, who must be physically accessible and aware of local issues. Experience from elsewhere in the country suggests that a ratio of councillors to electorate of 1:3,500 is a reasonable compromise. However, to apply this ratio to Suffolk would result, in the case of a single unitary authority, in a total of around 150 councillors. No local authority in the country has more than 120 members, and most have considerably fewer. Intuitively there must come a point where a council becomes impracticably large to manage and it seems likely that such a situation arises at between 100 and 120 elected members. The County Council single unitary concept envisages 75 -100 members, which would create wards at least twice the size (over 1:7000) of the preferred models, leaving the unitary county uniquely unable to connect with and represent the public. Under the East/West model the two authorities will have between 70 and 80 members each, which is a reasonable compromise between the current total of County and District Councillors (378) and the current number of County Councillors (75). 2.4 Disenfranchisement of rural parishes. There are 431 parish and town councils in Suffolk, and it is doubtful that a single county unitary authority could have a meaningful relationship with such a large number of local councils. It would be a much more manageable situation with two roughly equal sized authorities. This is particularly so if the objectives of the Lyons Review are to be achieved and the White paper expectations of ‘place shaping’ and greater engagement with the ‘local councils’ tier of governance are to be realised. 2.5 Related to this is the issue of diversity. Suffolk is a very diverse County with many challenges, such as • pockets of deprivation (Ipswich & Waveney) • coastal erosion • areas of high industrialisation/ regeneration • market town economies • housing and infrastructure issues • differing economic drivers Within one county sized unitary authority, all of these issues will compete for funding/manpower/ resources and political attention. The East/West Model establishes areas which are distinct in terms of character and economy and importantly, with which existing communities already identify. Within these authorities there will still be competing pressures for resources and political attention. However they will be of a much more manageable scale and will involve issues to which the local community can relate. They will also give elected members a better chance to be actively engaged at a neighbourhood level. 3 of 16 2.6 The idea that there might be diseconomies of scale in a large county unitary may seem counter-intuitive. However, many economies of scale rely on co-locating staff so as to save on overheads and to pool expertise and resources. Furthermore, local authorities exist to serve their communities and if a county unitary was over-centralised, the increased cost of travel (in terms of direct cost and staff time) is likely to negate those initial economies. These problems could be mitigated, to some extent, by the establishment of satellite offices (as is already being done by the County Council in the form of “public service villages” at Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds and Lowestoft). However this brings into question the whole “bigger is better and cheaper” notion. To provide services it is clearly accepted that local arrangements are needed – consequently a county unitary could be such in name only operationally it would have to mimic two or three unitaries. So much the better to have the East/West model with all the other benefits of governance, adequate electoral representation, clarity, communication with the electorate etc, 2.7 As mentioned above, a county-wide unitary authority on the scale of Suffolk is unprecedented. The only existing single purpose authorities with populations greater than 500,000 are Leeds and Birmingham, (at 750,000 and 1,006,000 respectively). They are clearly not comparable to rural Suffolk, as the relatively small and urban focussed, geographical areas which they cover compensate, in many ways, for the sheer weight of numbers in terms of population and resources (bearing in mind the sparsity factor, in providing services across a large rural area such as Suffolk with the increased logistical difficulties and costs which that inevitably brings). 2.8 There is no precedent for an authority of 700,000 population over such a large geographical area. This must call in question any claim that it could be viable or indeed beneficial to the community. We feel that the two authorities we propose, covering fewer than 350,000 residents each will be large enough to provide strategic direction whilst remaining small enough to connect with their communities. Question 3 Conversely, how can smaller unitaries ensure that they have the capacity and ‘critical mass’ to deliver affordable services, while retaining a strategic approach to issues across the county. 3.1 This begs the question of what constitutes a “smaller” unitary. Our concept envisages two unitary authorities of around 350,000 population. In practice, this would mean two authorities of between 300,000 and 400,000 population. Neither is small for a single purpose authority. Of the 115 single purpose authorities in England, only 17 have a population in excess of 300,000.

Load more