Forest Heath District Council‘s Concept for Unitary Local Government in

This document outlines Forest Heath District Council‘s concept for unitary local government in Suffolk based on and East Suffolk Unitary authorities.

It is the view of Forest Heath District Council that such a model will offer the customer and the Government the optimal benefits across the key criteria set by DCLG for unitary councils in Suffolk. Critically, it will:

• Be of a scale and nature to which people in Suffolk can relate • Make sense geographically • Facilitate access to services • Offer optimum value for money to the government • Enable local accountability and empowerment.

The precise boundary is not as important as the concept itself at this stage œ but we suggest that the A140 provides a clean definition of geographic separation, although the concept boundary could easily be flexed to include the totality of Mid Suffolk and Babergh districts with no loss of benefits to the overall business case.

An Approved Policy response to the Boundary Committee

Forest Heath District Council

April 9th 2008

1 Introduction

This concept paper has been prepared in response The West Suffolk Unitary will be able to build a to the Boundary Committee review of local sense of community around the similarities of the government structures in Norfolk and Suffolk, market towns and smaller conurbations spread including the possibility of the inclusion of across the varied environment. Lowestoft/Waveney within either the Norfolk or Suffolk boundary. There is also a strong sense of place for an East Suffolk Unitary which has much commonality in the We believe that residents of Suffolk are currently current areas of Waveney, and receiving good services at both county and district Ipswich. level and the limited consultation we have carried out in preparation of this paper suggests that a We strongly believe that Waveney and Lowestoft sizeable proportion of the population are in favour should remain part of Suffolk and play a key role in of maintaining the existing three tier system of the development of a robust and energetic future government within Suffolk. (see page 4) identity for the East of the county. We consider that the existing communities in the town and district have strong heritage and economic ties to We believe that the basis of any new structure Suffolk. should be a balance between —large enough to provide strategic direction whilst remaining In relation to the consideration of Lowestoft and small enough to connect with its Norfolk: communities“. Consequently, the ”best fit‘ for Suffolk is the creation of two unitary authorities • The complications of cross border provision in based on an East/West geographical boundary. relation to police, health and other public services would counteract any perceived This would ensure two authorities substantial benefits of combined local government enough in size and capacity to ensure services structures. could be delivered effectively whilst also providing • There are also other ways of working across value for money. For the community these bodies administrative boundaries which can deliver the would build upon the differences within the County, key outcomes including multi-agency working the coastal areas to the East and the rural market arrangements and strategic partnerships, towns to the West, securing an improved sense of where required. place for all communities. • Other areas of Suffolk also have strong ties with adjoining counties, for example Forest The concept outlined in this paper provides an Heath and St Edmundsbury form part of the initial assessment of the benefits to the county, its Cambridge Sub-Region, but this does not residents, businesses, partners and stakeholders. automatically lend itself to incorporation.

Our concept is based around the principle that both The distinctiveness of the two new authorities will East and West Suffolk have strong identities that provide an opportunity for the development of residents are proud of and eager to retain. The new, strong and clear identities for both East and interests of individual neighbourhoods and West Suffolk, along with new and innovative communities across the County cannot be member involvement, community engagement effectively managed and served by one unitary mechanisms and effective, efficient working authority, representing over 700,000 people. arrangements.

The existing pattern of service delivery in Suffolk, This is an exciting opportunity to make a better natural geography and communities of interest form of local government for Suffolk and we want lend themselves to an East/West model. to make it work. With our neighbours in St Edmundsbury, we believe passionately in West Suffolk and we are committed to developing this concept to fruition, with the support of the Boundary Committee and our partners.

2 Vision

We want to build upon the relationships that We want to establish new authorities that will already exist within East and West Suffolk engage effectively with local communities to deliver respectively with other local agencies such as the services that reflect a real commitment to the area police, the health care trusts, voluntary and and its citizens and that are accessible and community groups to develop a new type of local relevant. government and local governance delivering accountability, accessibility and empowerment. We hope to see both the East and West Suffolk Unitary Authorities share our core organisational Our vision for the local area is already one of a values of: —clean, green, safe and prosperous“ area. This vision will carry through into the new unitary • Professionalism authority. • Accountability • Efficiency • Value for Money.

Assumptions

We have made a number of working assumptions in the development of our Concept and this • We have included preliminary evidence document, in particular: which demonstrates broad support for our concept. This has been obtained from the • Our proposal has been developed at this consultation we have been able to first stage as an initial concept given the undertake to date, as well as evidence timescale to which we have had to work. from previous consultation exercises where appropriate. Further consultation with a • We have for convenience based the number of partners, stakeholders and East/West unitary concept on a conceptual residents will be undertaken to inform any boundary. It may, in the final analysis, be detailed business case. desirable to modify those boundaries, particularly if public consultation reveals • More work will need to be undertaken in strong local views about their community the development of the neighbourhood and sense of place. governance models to ensure that these are appropriate to individual areas and • The figures used within this paper, in maximise accessibility, accountability, relation to the population/electorate base ownership and empowerment. of any new unitary authorities, are based on an amalgamation of Forest Heath, St • This concept sets out principles which can Edmundsbury, Mid Suffolk and Babergh to operate across new East and West Unitary constitute West Suffolk, with an East authorities. However we recognise that Suffolk authority incorporating Suffolk the local governance arrangements can Coastal, Waveney and Ipswich, if and may need to be amended, throughout supported by their communities. this review process, to ensure that they reflect the needs of both the East and the • We have included indicative information in West of Suffolk. respect of affordability to provide a financial context to our concept. However in line with the guidance from the Boundary Committee we have not, at this stage, carried out a detailed affordability analysis of this concept.

3 Broad Cross Section of Support Further unitary local government structures must be supported by a broad cross section of partners and stakeholders.

We have endeavoured to raise awareness with geographical strengths and policy imperatives local residents through the local media using outlined. advertorials, a web consultation, a Parish Briefing newsletter and our own consultation leaflets for The size and structure of the East/West authorities public use. We have also presented our Concept to would negate some of the concerns raised key stakeholder groups including town and parish throughout Suffolk, in respect of the initial Ipswich councils, elected Members and staff. Unitary proposal such as:

The timescale for the Concept stage has meant • Transition costs. that it has not been possible to undertake a • Potential for inequality. detailed programme of community engagement. • Loss of economies of scale. • Capacity for service delivery. We have, however, developed an outline • Duplication within the County as a whole. programme, including the establishment of focus groups to enable us to engage key groups during … together with the concerns from the Secretary of the preparation of our full business case. State that the Ipswich proposal would not achieve payback within the specified period. The establishment of new unitary authorities for Suffolk provides an opportunity for real —place Both East and West Suffolk also have a natural shaping“ as envisaged by Sir Michael Lyons. urban administrative centre, easily accessible by public transport, in respectively, Ipswich and Bury An East/West model would create a real sense of St Edmunds and this will help people relate to and identity for local residents and businesses. The access the new authorities. model encourages recognition of the individuality of the geography, economy and diversity of the Suffolk‘s stakeholders are also already familiar with two parts of Suffolk, between —the Countryside joint working arrangements across administrative and the Coast“. boundaries on an East/West basis.

We believe the concept of East/West Suffolk For Example: unitary authorities is likely to engender broad • Both Waveney and St Edmundsbury are support from residents and key stakeholders for a developing formal joint service delivery points number of reasons. In particular it reflects other through their Public Sector Villages. administrative boundaries and arrangements. • Safer Neighbourhoods Teams (Suffolk Constabulary) operate out of several District For Example: Council offices including St Edmundsbury, Mid • Suffolk Constabulary operates on an Eastern Suffolk and Forest Heath. and Western Area basis. The boundaries for • Forest Heath delivers its Revenues and Benefits these areas have recently been reviewed and Service jointly with and East from April 2009 will be co-terminus with district Cambridgeshire. boundaries. • An emerging Waste Partnership exists between • NHS Hospital Trusts, operate on an east/west Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury. basis (the West Suffolk Hospital Trust, Bury St • Suffolk Coastal and Ipswich operate a joint Edmunds and Ipswich Hospital Trust). Building Control Service. • Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership, the district Councils within the Western Area The Public View have joined together to create WSCSP. Approximately 60% of those responding to our • West Suffolk Local Strategic Partnership œ open consultation favour the status quo local incorporates Forest Heath, St Edmundsbury government structure. The East West model is the and part of Babergh. This has a track record most favoured of all the options for unitary local of operating across district boundaries. government. Parish and Town Councils The result will be improved partnership working Of those attending our Parish Forum on 8th April, across the public service infrastructure and into the 90% would prefer the status quo arrangements but business and voluntary sectors, linked through a if change is to be made, 90% were in favour of the new LAA process, with governance focused on the East West model

4 Strategic Leadership Future unitary government structures must provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership.

East/West authorities provide an ideal size and For example: structure for strong, effective and accountable The West Suffolk Local Strategic Partnership leadership. The Concept ensures that the authority currently encompasses Forest Heath, St is not too large so as to remove any sense of Edmundsbury and part of Babergh and is community, but that it is of a scale and nature developing strongly. As well as currently including necessary to provide strong strategic leadership. Suffolk County Council, the LSP also involves representatives of the Suffolk PCT, Suffolk By utilising a Mayor or Leader and Cabinet model Constabulary (Western Area) and other agencies residents can be assured that their new authority is and community groups. clearly and visibly accountable and focused on establishing a sense of place and taking proper This Partnership would be expanded to incorporate regard of local context. the whole of the West to provide a complete West Strategic Partnership and the model could be Cabinet Members would have clear responsibilities, replicated in the East, or modified to reflect local encompassing the thematic priorities indentified in circumstances. the Sustainable Community Strategy. These thematic responsibilities would be mirrored in the The two new unitaries would both enter into Local Strategic Partnership, where the Cabinet negotiations with GO-East for the development of Members would be expected to play a full role. two new Local Area Agreements (LAA) based on the redefinition of priorities and indicators for East We would also investigate the development of and West Suffolk authorities. geographically based roles and responsibilities to enable Members to play an active role in their This would enable the development of LAAs, communities and neighbourhoods. reflecting both the specific strengths and distinct challenges facing the East and West respectively. This would be balanced by a strong overview and This will strengthen the strategic leadership and scrutiny role, building on neighbourhood focus for the area. empowerment to ensure effective service delivery at a local level. We are confident that this structure would have the capacity to deliver services and enable partnerships The new Councils will set out their vision for the and has the added benefit that: area and develop a new Sustainable Community Strategy for their respective areas. However, • The police and health service structures during the transition this can be effectively currently operate along similar boundaries to delivered through amendments to the existing those outlined in our Concept. Local Strategic Partnership framework. The new • The resource base of both authorities would be Strategic Partnerships would be able to utilise the substantial, each having a council tax base in information gathered, as part of the development excess of 120,000 (Appendix 1- page 13). of district Community and Corporate Plans, to ensure that their Sustainable Community Strategies The East/West structure would also enable each are firmly grounded in issues that are important to authority to pursue its strategic diversity and those local communities. differing community needs. There is a widespread

recognition of the linkages between Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury with the Cambridge Sub- Region. The area is also influenced by a substantial community of USAFE personnel, migrant agricultural workers and the significant contribution of the horseracing industry to the local economy.

In the East there is recognition of the links between Suffolk Coastal and Waveney in the importance of the ports and coastal tourism to the local economy.

5 By combining the Suffolk Coastal, Waveney and • Tourism linked to the seaside towns of Ipswich districts our unitary model will enable Pakefield, Southwold, Aldeburgh and strong leadership and viability of an East Suffolk. Felixstowe, as well as to other places of The new authority will be able to focus on key interest such as Woodbridge and Beccles, strategic drivers for the whole area such as the through to attractions such as Framlingham economic imperative of the ports of Lowestoft, Castle and Pleasurewood Hills. Ipswich and Felixstowe and the shared road infrastructure of the A12/A14. With the West there are also a number of key local issues upon which its new unitary authority would The two authorities would be small enough to focus, such as: retain a local sense of identity, whilst being large enough to carry considerable weight at a regional • Economic development relating to Market and national level, influencing on issues such as Towns, including Bury St Edmunds, the Regional Spatial, Transport, Economic and Newmarket, Stowmarket, Mildenhall, Sudbury Waste Strategies. and Haverhill.

• Environmental and economic matters relating The size, scale and geographical makeup of the to the agricultural industry (particularly sugar new East unitary authority would enable the beet) and the horseracing industry. leadership to address issues such as: • The diverse tourism attractions in the area, from the Home of Horseracing in Newmarket, • Climate change. historic and idyllic towns such as Lavenham, • Coastal erosion. together with attractions including Museum of • Flood management. East Anglian Life and Brandon Country Park. • Renewable energy sources. • Links with the Cambridge Sub-Region in terms • Heritage coast tourism. of housing, economy, culture and • Potential for the establishment of Urban infrastructure. Regeneration Companies (URCs). Whilst the Boundary Commission would need to In the West Suffolk Council the new leadership will undertake an Electoral Review in order to be able to focus on issues of common importance determine the appropriate number of Councillors including: for any new authority we have undertaken some initial analysis. • The particular social/ economic/ demographic dimensions around the horse racing industry In respect of Member representation were we to and fenland agricultural employees. apply the 1:3500 ratio (Members-Electorate) • The importance of coherent approaches to applied in the Cheshire model representation rural transport. across Suffolk would be 79 Members for East • Affordable housing. Suffolk and 72 Members for West Suffolk, an • Improving neighbourhood empowerment. equitable balance (Appendix A œ page 13). • Tackling access to services in rural areas. • Potential development of Business We feel that two authorities of this size would be Improvement Districts (BIDs). able to take a long term strategic overview without • The wider economic driver of the Cambridge being too remote from their electorate. sub-region. • Improving educational attainment and skills This would also reduce the number of Councillors levels. in Suffolk from 378 to 151 (Appendix A œ page 13) which will bring about value for money dividends Within the East the new authority would be able to for the unitary councils, as costs of overall political build upon the knowledge and experience of the management are reduced. three port authorities of Waveney, Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal. This new authority would be able to focus on key issues for the area such as:

• Economic development around the three ports of Ipswich, Felixstowe and Lowestoft. • Coastal protection and the flood management imperative, in relation to climate change.

6 Neighbourhood Empowerment Future unitary local government structures must deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhood flexibility and empowerment….

The current three tier system of local government As a minimum, these Local Service Forums would in Suffolk enables Officers and Members to be in operate in a similar way to the tried and tested touch with the local community, its needs and —Community Partnerships“, creating a vision and an expectations at various levels. It will be essential action plan for their area similar to the Town Action that any new unitary model utilises this knowledge Plans currently in operation throughout Suffolk. in the development of a new neighbourhood model. At the other end of the scale it would also be possible for the new East/West unitaries to devolve By basing the new unitary authorities on an budgets and services to this level as appropriate. East/West model it will ensure: Each Local Service Forum could be: • That the new authorities are not perceived by residents to be remote and disinterested. • Formally constituted and receive a budget to • We are able to balance the local needs and tackle local issues. context of individual communities with the • Be open and accountable to all its residents. strategic direction for the area. • Provide a key link to the local community, its needs and aspirations. It is vital that the new unitary authorities introduce • Supported by an Elected Member and senior local, but manageable and flexible neighbourhood officer from the unitary authority. empowerment models. There are a number of potential models, some of which are currently The establishment of Local Service Forums can be being implemented and tested in other newly supported by specialist engagement of key groups, formed unitary authorities. It will be important to such as the detailed and localised youth learn lessons for those current developments and involvement work undertaken by authorities, successful best practice. including Forest Heath.

We recognise that diverse communities require As outlined in the Strategic Leadership section, the different methods and models and that a —one size existence of the West Suffolk Local Strategic fits all“ approach may not always be the answer. Partnership, demonstrates the recognition of the Based upon a review of existing models for key links between these areas and provides a community engagement, we believe there is a model and context within which LSFs can viable model that would strengthen both East and successfully be established. West Suffolk. As well as enabling the new authorities to focus on We would propose (subject to detailed consultation the neighbourhood issues, through the Local with residents, partners and stakeholders) Service Forums, the actual establishment of two clustering parishes and wards into unitary authorities would also facilitate flexibility to —neighbourhoods“ of approximately 20-25,000 address the individual issues of an East/West population. These would be centred around the Suffolk. towns and villages throughout East and West Suffolk and structured on local connections and These arrangements will also support the identities. development of other community engagement mechanisms such as: These Neighbourhoods would be managed as Local Service Forums (LSFs) Supported by the new • The Community Call for Action. East/West Suffolk Strategic Partnerships, their size • Community ownership. would ensure that they are meaningful to the local • Neighbourhood management. community whilst being manageable and practical for partnership working, i.e. with town and parish councils, local Safer Neighbourhood Teams, voluntary and private sector organisations.

7 Value for Money and Equity on Public Services Future unitary local government structures must deliver value for money and equity on public services.

Managing Ourselves: Managing Our Services:

An East/West Model would enable two reasonably These new larger, cross-cutting authorities will be sized unitary authorities with sufficient critical mass able to match resources to community needs and to deliver effective, efficient and equitable services strategic priorities, utilising key learning from the whilst achieving value for money. existing staff base and new unitary arrangements. A number of existing projects will provide excellent The establishment of new facilities is an issue building blocks for the East/West Suffolk Councils. which is tackled under affordability. However the establishment of new working practices is an issue For Example: of value for money. • Procurement project œ this is seeking a partnership approach to procurement needs to The merger of seven district authorities, combined bring about efficiency savings. with the county council to form two new unitary • ICT project œ this is seeking long term authorities, will be a significant logistical exercise. alignment of ICT systems / platforms to bring However this is a model that has been about ease of data and operational service implemented in other areas (including Berkshire sharing, together with procurement benefits and Cheshire) and there is much positive learning based on scale. to be gained. Successful joint working arrangements which will Under the new authorities, it will be possible to be built on include: implement new managerial structures that reflect both the new political and governance framework, • The Beacon Council award winning Anglia as well as the changing face of local government. Revenues Partnership (ARP) providing housing These changes will result in some cost reductions, and council tax benefit and council tax whilst maintaining and improving local accessibility administration to Forest Heath, Breckland and and accountability. East Cambridgeshire District Councils. This tri- border partnership currently delivers efficiency A number of authorities in Suffolk including Forest savings in excess of £100,000 per annum to Heath have utilised business process re- Forest Heath alone. engineering to change the way they deliver • Joint Waste Services œ Forest Heath and St services on the frontline, whilst streamlining back Edmundsbury have recently agreed to pursue office functions. The inclusion of previous county the establishment of a Joint Waste Service, based services at a local East/West level will enable through a Joint Management Board, offering a more holistic review of the way in which services waste collection, recycling, composting and are provided. This will reduce costs and improve street cleansing services, building on existing quality. informal operational arrangements and mutual support. In order to inform the residents of our work, it is • Joint Coastal Protection arrangements within vital that we are aware of how well we are Suffolk Coastal and Waveney. delivering our services. Business process re- • A Joint Building Control Service provided across engineering enables us to structure services around Ipswich, Suffolk Coastal and Babergh. our customers. In addition to this we will implement a robust performance management The establishment of new unitary authorities framework which will: serving populations in excess of 325,000 will

provide an opportunity for key learning to be taken • Monitor service delivery. forward at a pace, whilst removing the red tape • Manage service costs. sometimes associated with three tier local • Seek customer feedback. government and existing working cultures. • Publish performance against agreed targets.

8 For Example: The establishment of East/West unitaries would The new unitary councils will be responsible for add democratic representation and management to both waste collection and disposal. By continuing these existing locality arrangements, delivering the commitment to the successful and Beacon greater local accountability. award winning, Suffolk Waste Partnership, waste collection and recycling initiatives along with Whilst the Local Service Forums will ensure that disposal minimisation targets can continue to be local people have a role in determining service delivered whilst securing economies of scale and provisions, it will also be essential that people can consistency. access local services and feel a sense of ownership with the new authorities. The proposal will enable a number of other practical changes in the way we deliver services Suffolk has made much of new technology, utilising such as: telephone and electronic service provision methods, where appropriate. However our —customer first“ work has highlighted that a • Linking together litter picking and highways maintenance. number of services still need to be provided face to face at a location convenient to our customers. • Occupational Therapy and Disabled Facilities Grants. We would therefore propose that a network of

Customer Service Points (CSPs) are established in This will in itself improve the level of service key locations in East and West Suffolk. It will be delivery to customers. essential to utilise detailed local data and

knowledge to ensure these CSPs are located in the Other more strategic potential areas for service right places for our customers. We will look to co- improvement include: locate with other partners, including the Police

Safer Neighbourhood Teams, providing potential • Aligning regulatory services (local and regional integrated working arrangements (For example: planning through to land charges). PCSOs reporting and enforcing fly-tipping or • Integration of Trading Standards, Public Health abandoned vehicles.) and Licensing functions. • Improving links and synergies between The East/West model is likely to offer the optimal transport/housing/planning. value for money option for Suffolk since it is a ”best • Improving links between fit‘ of geographical location and reduction in overall planning/housing/adult social care. authorities from eight to two. • Better utilisation of the Third Sector (voluntary organisations and not for profit businesses). The clarity and transparency of a unitary structure should not be overlooked. The new unitary There will also be more opportunities for large structures will provide a complete range of services scale procurement. The developments in for their residents. This will remove any of the procurement mean that it will be possible for each confusion that still exists around district/county authority to secure the best service fit, for the responsibilities. The new authorities will be able to area. This could be provided individually or shared ensure more queries can be resolved at first point across the two new authorities, including the of contact and engender truly cross-cutting potential for procurements, relating to buying into themes. This will negate the need for the a new waste disposal Energy from Waste (EfW) implementation of complex cross-authority facility. information systems.

We intend to explore options for combined We believe that this clarity will also enable the contracts between the new unitaries, where enhancement of relationships with town and parish possible, to ensure the savings are maximised. Councils.

Suffolk County Council has area service structures for Adult Services, Children‘s Services, Highways and Libraries. Under such arrangements these services are delivered on a sub-county structure from Bury St Edmunds, Ipswich and Lowestoft. This would seem to support our case, not only for an East/West Mode,l but for more localised service provision of these major functions, building on the actual realities of existing service imperatives.

9 Affordability

We recognise that the Boundary Committee is not The implementation of an East/West/Greater requesting a fully costed proposal at this stage. Ipswich arrangement would mean the creation of However, in the course of the development of our three administrative centres, three administrative concept, we have examined a range of other processes and associated management and political options, a number of which we do not consider to arrangements in terms of both set up and be appropriate because of their potential cost implementation costs. This may not provide the implications. optimum case for affordability.

Evidence from the current round of local We recognise that we will need to undertake a government reorganisations indicates that detailed financial evaluation for our Concept, which population figures in excess of 250,000 provide a has not been possible in the time available. We balance for efficiency, capacity and resilience in a are however certain that, in terms of initial set up unitary authority. On this basis East and West and short term costs, there is potential, in terms of Suffolk authorities would seem to be an asset management and a review of political and appropriate size (Appendix 1 œ page 13). managerial arrangements, to ensure affordability within the payback period. We also recognise that there are some key issues which support the potential affordability of the The East/West Suffolk proposal is broadly East/West authorities: comparable with the model put forward by the Cheshire district councils, which was deemed to have met all five of the criteria, including • By locating these new authorities in Ipswich affordability. and Bury St Edmunds respectively there is

potential for the utilisation of existing public This East/West unitary model is affordable and the service buildings. best financial option for Suffolk as a whole, • Bury St Edmunds is currently building a new because the payback period is likely to be shorter Public Service Village, specifically designed to than for most other concepts. co-locate District and County staff.

In contrast, if Suffolk were to pursue a Greater Ipswich/Rural Suffolk arrangement (the so-called —doughnut option“) there is the crucial question of a natural home for a new rural unitary authority. It would be problematical for a Rural Suffolk Authority to operate out of Ipswich, without alienating its rural residents, but if it was not based there it is likely to be too remote from either the East or the West of the County. Either way, a rural county unitary does not pass the test of proximity to the people.

This could also be an issue in respect of a Unitary authority for Suffolk. Whilst the establishment of an administrative centre in Ipswich would be relatively simple, the size of the district and the population within it would require an extensive network of Customer Access Points to ensure equitable access to services.

Any new authority that requires significant investment in assets is unlikely to prove the affordability case.

10 Conclusion

When writing this proposal we have concentrated Alternative Options on demonstrating why we think the East/West Model is the best option for Suffolk and how that A number of potential options for unitary structures proposal meets the criteria laid down by the in Suffolk were considered as concepts by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Suffolk Leaders Group. Our conclusions are based Government: on an examination of these potential options and how we consider them to be less appropriate for • Broad cross section of support Suffolk or less able to meet the five criteria. • Strategic Leadership • Neighbourhood Empowerment A detailed evaluation of why we think some of the • Value for Money other options are not as viable as the East/West • Affordability Model are outlined in Appendix 3 (page 16). However these can be summarised as: East/West Model (Two Councils): Suffolk Unitary (One Council): This Concept provides a balance between —large enough to provide strategic direction whilst We feel that a unitary authority, covering in excess remaining small enough to connect with its of 700,000 residents in 419 parishes over such as communities“. The East and West unitaries will: large geographical and diverse area, would be impractical and unmanageable. Communication • Be large enough to provide strong leadership would be a particular problem. whilst delivering economically efficient services, which are local enough to residents There is a significant risk that the authority would to be recognisable, accessible and relevant. not be cost effective, due to the complexities of • Create a sense of place for each authority, managing such a substantial number of service focusing on the unique environmental areas and associated staff. aspects of the Countryside and the Coast. • Engender broad support from residents and There is an even greater risk that a Suffolk Unitary partners as it compliments other would not be able to engage effectively with local administrative boundaries. communities or reasonably represent the diverse • Implement new Sustainable Community cultures and communities within the County. For Strategies and Strategic Partnerships for East example, it would need in excess of 150 Councillors and West Suffolk, focusing on the very to meet the 1:3500 population ratio used in our different issues for each authority. Concept. • Enable elected Members to play an active role in their communities and Greater Ipswich and Rural Suffolk Unitaries neighbourhoods. (Two Councils): • Establish Local Service Forums ensuring meaningful engagement with town and We feel that a Rural Suffolk Unitary would still be parish councils, local Safer Neighbourhoods impractical and unmanageable, representing in Teams, voluntary and business organisations excess of 550,000 people across over 400 parishes. as well as residents. • Facilitate new efficient, effective, innovative A Rural Suffolk authority would struggle to ways of working, aligning services with clarity determine an identity which would fit with the and transparency. diverse nature of the towns and villages within its boundaries, unable to satisfy either —the Countryside“ or —the Coast“. It would also be difficult to determine a natural administrative hub for such a body without disenfranchising a large section of the population.

The initial Ipswich unitary bid did not enjoy a broad cross section of support. Any amended proposal to expand the boundary of Ipswich to encompass the parishes in its hinterland, such as the Felixstowe peninsular and/or Martlesham is likely to lead to objections from these parishes who look to retain their separate identity. 11 East/West/Greater Ipswich Unitaries (Three Councils):

Within our two unitary model, we promote the logic of —the Countryside and the Coast“ as the basis for one authority in the East. We believe that this will be more strategic and more efficient financially. A Greater Ipswich will not advance either of these issues.

We feel that the establishment of a separate authority in Ipswich would lead to the unnecessary creation of another administrative centre, administrative processes and associated management and political arrangements, in terms of both set up and implementation costs and this will not represent value for money for Suffolk.

There is also a view that the boundaries of Ipswich should not be expanded as a distinct —sense of place“ is felt by residents of the coastal strip of villages and towns within the existing Suffolk Coastal and Waveney districts. This may enable the development of innovative neighbourhood governance and community engagement models for the area, within a whole East Suffolk Unitary.

Yartoft: We understand that the Boundary Committee has also been asked to specifically review the potential for an alteration of the boundary for Waveney/Lowestoft. Geoffrey Jaggard The Suffolk Leaders Group produced a Statement Leader (Appendix 2 œ page 14) which outlines why we cannot support or substantiate any case for the inclusion of Lowestoft or Waveney in any Yartoft proposal.

Our understanding is that there is no broad support for a Yartoft model from either Norfolk or Suffolk.

David W Burnip

Chief Executive

12 Appendix 1 - County of Suffolk œ Key Statistics

Table 1: County of Suffolk œ Key Statistics

Current East Suffolk West Suffolk Unitary Unitary

Population (2001 Census) 668,553 344,552 324,001

Population (2006 MYE) 702,100 359,400 277,302

Electorate (Dec 2006) 532,167 277,302 254,865

Tax base 2008/09 (Projected) 252,769 129,433 123,336

County electoral divisions 63 29 34

County councillors 75 39 36

District Councils 7 3 4

District Wards 175 74 101

District Councillors 303 148 155

Total Councillors 378 79 72

Parish & Town Councils* 431 161 270

*Based on the inclusion of Mid Suffolk, Babergh, St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath in the West and Ipswich, Suffolk Coastal, Waveney in the East.

13 Appendix 2 - Joint Statement from the Leaders of the Suffolk Local Authorities

At its initial meeting with Leaders and Chief Executives from the Suffolk Local Authorities on 26th February 2008, the Boundary Committee requested Councils to submit concepts, for the possible formation of new unitary authorities, by 11th April 2008.

Having regard to that request, the Leaders have explored and considered a range of options for unitary local government in Suffolk. Following a further meeting between them on 14th March, they arrived at several high level conclusions which are summarised below.

Concepts for new unitary authorities Leaders agreed that they could identify four general concepts, for consideration by the Boundary Committee. These are as follows: • a single unitary Suffolk (one unitary) • an expanded Ipswich unitary plus a unitary based upon the remainder of the County (two unitaries) • East plus West unitaries with Ipswich included as part of the East unitary (two unitaries) • East plus West unitaries plus an expanded Ipswich unitary (three unitaries)

Waveney and Great Yarmouth It is appreciated that in conducting its review, the Boundary Committee must also address for Suffolk, the question as to:

”whether there could be an alternative proposal for a single tier of local government and if so on what basis, for Ipswich and the whole or part of the surrounding Suffolk county area, together with the whole or part of the district of Great Yarmouth‘… and in relation to Norfolk, the question as to:

”whether there could be an alternative proposal for a single tier of local government and if so on what basis, for Norwich and the whole or part of the surrounding Norfolk county area, together with the whole or part of the district of Waveney”.

Consequently Leaders also addressed the possibility of combining all or some part of Waveney with Great Yarmouth and have concluded, unanimously, that they cannot support or substantiate a case for putting together the whole, or any part of these two areas, in any permutation of unitary local authority, whether based in Suffolk, Norfolk or having its own independent geographical identity. The reasons for this collective view are set out below:

• Affordability œ given the overall performance levels of both authorities (i.e. Waveney and Great Yarmouth) at the present time, questions and doubts reasonably arise, in the relation to the practical reality of achieving affordability, by combining them. The Audit Commission also may have concerns, in that connection, were such a proposal to come forward. • Broad Cross Section of Support - Initial indications suggest that a ”Yartoft‘ proposal is unlikely to gain the support of the majority of the public, local authorities or the police. Whilst, therefore, it is understood that this criterion does not demand anything like a unanimous expression of support, the view remains that a broad spectrum of support will not be expressed, in relation to a concept of this nature. • Strategic Leadership œ this criterion requires that a unitary structure must provide strong effective and accountable strategic leadership, inclusive of strong economic leadership. Currently, both areas, either side of the county boundary, have difficult social and economic issues to tackle. Consequently, the possibility of joining them together, in a new unitary authority, could well generate or exacerbate a sense of isolation, instead of creating a supportive environment in which such problems can be addressed positively and with a sense of optimism for the future. Furthermore, in terms of impact upon the remainder of Suffolk, the County would lose its current strategic approach to coastal issues, its focus upon renewable energy and its drive to achieve an improved transport infrastructure, through its coastal areas. • Value for Money œ the comments made above, concerning performance levels, in the context of Affordability, are also considered to be applicable, when it comes to the need to demonstrate Value for Money. The ”Yartoft‘ combination inevitably raises the issue of capacity, both in relation to the challenge of actually establishing a new unitary local authority, as well as providing high quality

14 services at a reasonable cost. It is also questionable whether all this could be accomplished alongside the need, successfully, to address a number of regeneration challenges.

Conclusion

This Statement sets out the common approach adopted by the Leaders of the Suffolk local authorities. It will be supplemented by a further document, prepared and submitted by each Council, individually. The purpose of each such additional document will be to identify the concept or concepts supported by a particular Council, together with a summary of the reasons which justify any such preference.

15 Appendix 3 - Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Models for Unitary Governance in Suffolk

From the perspective of Forest Heath, there appear to be four potential models (or, in the preferred terminology of the Boundary Committee, concepts) for unitary local government in Suffolk: • A unitary Suffolk County Council • A unitary Rural Suffolk and a unitary Greater Ipswich • Two unitary Councils œ East and West Suffolk • Three unitary Councils œ East and West Suffolk and Greater Ipswich. There is another potential variation on each of the above scenarios created by the possibility of all or part of being combined with Great Yarmouth as part of a cross-border —Yartoft“ unitary authority. The —Yartoft“ option does not necessarily invalidate the first three concepts. It does however, have a significant impact on the viability of the fourth model, which is explored in more detail below. It should be stressed that these are only working assumptions. For instance, we have based the East/West unitary concept on existing district boundaries. It may, in the final analysis, be necessary to modify those boundaries, or to divide one or more of the districts, particularly in the light of public consultation, which may reveal strong local views about which side of the line particular communities feel they should be. It is the broad concepts that we are commenting on at this stage, rather than precise boundaries. The population figures used for comparing the four concepts are drawn from the 2001 census. Whilst revised mid-year estimates (MYEs) are produced each year by the ONS1, these MYEs are not routinely disaggregated to ward level. In order to compare the four concepts discussed below, it was necessary to make some assumptions about the likely size of Greater Ipswich by adding several wards from neighbouring districts. For that reason, the 2001 census population is used rather than the MYE. For other purposes the population figures used are MYE 2006, which are the most recent available. The electorate figures are those on which the most recent set of local government elections were fought2. The council tax base figures are those used by the DCLG in the 2008/09-2010/11 Revenue Support Grant settlement3.

Unitary Suffolk Concept - Definition The basic statistics for a unitary Suffolk are easy to calculate. The number of councillors assumed for a unitary authority is more speculative, and the assumptions used are explained below: Table A1 Suffolk County Council œ Key statistics

Population (2001 Census) 668,553 Population (MYE 2006) 702,000 Electorate (Dec 2006) 532,167 Tax base 2008/09 (Projected) 252,769 County electoral divisions 63 County councillors 75 District Councils 7 District Wards 175 District Councillors 303 Councillors in Suffolk 120 Unitary Authority

1 Office for National Statistics 2 Source œ UK Electoral Statistics 2007 œ Office for National Statistics (ONS). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=319 3 Source Communities and Local Government Website: http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0809/grant.htm 16 Councillors and Wards The population, electorate and tax base for a unitary Suffolk are easy to calculate. A more difficult question is how many councillors it would comprise. In the mid 1990s local government reorganisation, Herefordshire and the Isle of Wight4 were constituted as unitary authorities. Both councils have only a third or less of the population of Suffolk. In both cases, the ratio of councillors to electorate is around 1:2,300. That would give a Unitary Suffolk around 230 councillors, which is clearly is not practical. In the present round of structural reviews, five county areas have so far been approved for whole county unitary status (Cornwall, Durham, Northumberland, Shropshire and Wiltshire). The final number of councillors will be down to the Boundary Committee, but the proposal from Cornwall county council anticipates around 100 councillors compared with the present 82. Given that Suffolk has only 75 County Councillors for a population 30% larger than Cornwall‘s it has been assumed for this analysis that there would be up to 120 councillors for a unitary Suffolk, which would mean approximately two councillors for each of the existing 63 county divisions. At present, no local authority in and Wales has more than 120 councillors (even Birmingham City, Council with a population of over 1 Million). This would seem to be the limit of what is manageable in administrative terms, and it is assumed that a Unitary Suffolk Council would not be larger than 120 members.

Population and electorate The current population of Suffolk is 701,000. That is one third greater than that of Cornwall (526,000), which is the largest of the five —new“ unitary counties mentioned above. As it stands, 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 in a very different league to Rural Suffolk. A better comparison would be with Cheshire, which has a population and electorate around the same size as Suffolk and, significantly, is to be split into an East and West Unitary. The above analysis suggests that a unitary Suffolk model has serious shortcomings from just looking at the high level figures even before consideration of other drawbacks such as the remoteness of the council from —neighbourhoods“ and parishes.

Unitary Rural Suffolk and —Greater Ipswich“ Concept - Definition The initial proposal for a unitary Ipswich on current boundaries was not adopted in the last round. We are unaware of the detail of any extended boundary proposal for Greater Ipswich proposal. For the purpose of this analysis some basic assumptions have been made about the minimum likely size of a Greater Ipswich area. An initial analysis of the electoral maps suggests that there are six urban wards on the fringes of Ipswich, 5 in Suffolk Coastal and one in Babergh, which would be prime candidates for inclusion in an Ipswich unitary area. Applying this to the whole Suffolk area produces the following figures. Table A2 Suffolk Rural with Greater Ipswich Unitary concept

Population Population Electorate (2001 Census) based on MYE 20065

Suffolk Rural Unitary 525,947 554,000 415,555

Greater Ipswich 142,606 148,000 116,612

Under this concept the Suffolk Rural Unitary still represents a huge and, in our opinion, unmanageable 554,000 residents. There is also a clear imbalance between the two authorities in terms of size, tax base and the number of councillors. The population and electorate size for this version of Greater Ipswich would fit comfortably within the range of unitary authorities created in the mid 1990s. However, the trend in the present round of reorganisations has been for somewhat larger councils than those produced by the Banham review. It seems likely that the borders of Ipswich would need to extend beyond the minimum assumptions made above.

4 Rutland is, of course a historic county, but with a population the size of a very small shire district, it is a quite unique authority that can scarcely be regarded as any kind of precedent. 5 Because ward data is not available in the mid year estimates these figures are calculated by dividing the MYE 2006 population figures pro-rata to the 2001 census figure. 17 East/West Suffolk Unitary Concept - Definition The East/West Suffolk model option can be compared with the example of Cheshire mentioned above. The next table suggests that the best chance of getting two evenly balanced unitary authorities would be a split between the three coastal and four inland districts6. The councillor to electorate ratio being proposed in Cheshire of 1:3500 would lead to 72/79 councillors on each of the two new unitary authorities, thus reducing the total number of council seats in the County by just over half. The eastern half of Babergh might benefit from being included in East rather than West Suffolk, and there may be inland areas of Suffolk Coastal or Waveney that might be better within West Suffolk (and vice versa), so the proposed boundaries are very provisional and will need to be the subject of detailed public consultation. The basic concept does however, on the basis of these figures, seem sound. Table A3: East/West Suffolk Unitary Concept

Population 2001 Population Electorate Dec census 2006 MYE 2006

East Suffolk

Ipswich 117,069 120,400 93,832

Suffolk Coastal 115,141 122,200 93,109

Waveney 112,342 116,800 90,361

344,552 359,400 277,302

West Suffolk

Babergh 83,461 86,700 69,208

Forest Heath 55,510 62,100 35,538

Mid Suffolk 86,837 92,000 72,726

St. Edmundsbury 98,193 101,900 77,393

324,001 342,700 254,865

East/West Suffolk with a Greater Ipswich The following table shows the effect of adding a unitary —Greater Ipswich“ to the —East/West Suffolk“ model. The model produces three authorities, with Ipswich and East Suffolk being at the lower end of the scale in population terms. The viability of Greater Ipswich has been discussed above. The East Suffolk council in this model is also vulnerable on two fronts: A greater Ipswich might need to expand further, at Suffolk Coastal‘s expense; and a Yartoft unitary would take away a substantial part of Waveney. The number of councillors might be in the region of 60/50/40 for the three authorities, in descending order of size, on the assumption that a county total of 150 is reasonable figure to aim at.

6 Babergh, technically has a short coastline, but it is separated from the rest of coastal Suffolk by the Orwell estuary 18 Table A4 East/ West Suffolk and Greater Ipswich Unitary Concept

Population Population Electorate Dec (2001 census) 2006 MYE 20067

East Suffolk

Suffolk Coastal 93,615 99,600 73,746

Waveney 112,342 116,800 90,361

205,957 216,400 167107

West Suffolk

Babergh 79,450 82,500 65,791

Forest Heath 55,510 62,100 35,538

Mid Suffolk 86,837 92,000 72,726

St. Edmundsbury 98,193 101,900 77,393

319,990 338,500 251448

Greater Ipswich 142,606 147,200 116,612

The —Yartoft“ Factor The suggestion of a cross-border merger between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft would not materially affect the other options for Suffolk. However, —Yartoft does make the East/West plus Greater Ipswich option somewhat precarious. If the most northerly wards of Waveney District (Lowestoft and its environs) are taken out of the equation in Suffolk, over half of the Waveney District population goes with them. This leaves West Suffolk with a population of around 320,000, and two smaller unitary authorities of under half that size. This in turn begs the question of whether either Greater Ipswich or East Suffolk is sustainable, and whether it would be better to revert to the two unitary model anyway.

7 See note 5 19