Cooper, Mark

From: Parish Clerk Sent: 29 July 2017 10:28 To: reviews Subject: Please see attached letter Attachments: Ltr - Boundary Commission Review of Electoral Wards 27.07.2017.docx.pdf

-- Sarah Foote CiLCA Parish Clerk and RFO Palgrave Parish Council

1

www.palgrave.onesuffolk.net

Mr Mark Cooper Review Officer (Mid ) Local Government Boundary Commission for 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1 4QP E-mail: [email protected]

27 July 2017

Dear Sir,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF : WARDING ARRANGEMENTS

In response to your communication dated 13 June 2017 Palgrave Parish Council thanks you for the opportunity to respond to the public consultation and submits the following for your consideration, by reference to your three criteria.

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF MID SUFFOLK: WARDING ARRANGEMENTS - Palgrave Parish Council 1. Electoral Equality The supporting spreadsheet submitted by Mid Suffolk District Council includes the registered elector projections for Palgrave Parish within Palgrave Ward as follows:

MPAL Palgrave Ward/Palgrave (Parish) Current = 729 Predicted 2022 = 733 Increase = 4 (0.5%) Source 1.2 MSDC-Electorate-Figures-Proforma

First the predictions provided by MSDC are inaccurate insofar as the Parish of Palgrave is concerned. Some 32 dwellings (2 to 4 bedroom) have received planning approval since April 2016; of those 5 are nearing completion with a further 21 to immediately follow on another site by the same developer where site preparation has commenced. One is to be constructed as an annexe to an existing dwelling whilst outline planning permission for a further 5 family dwellings has just been granted. That represents a potential increase of up to 64 electors at 2 per dwelling (8.8%), ignoring rising 18s. Second the Draft Babergh/Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan is about to be published for Regulation 18 consultation. This will indicate where growth is planned and by how much. Whilst that does not necessarily change the overall balance of population in the immediate future it has the potential to do so within a relatively short space of time, rendering this review out of date. Palgrave has two sites identified, although one may also provide for a replacement primary school, and an outline planning

application for 9 family dwellings has just been submitted on the smaller of those sites. If approved, that could uplift the potential increase to 82 electors (11.2%), in excess of a notional 10% variation. In the continuing absence of a 5-year housing land supply a number of towns and settlements are under extreme pressure by developers and, given the relaxation in planning rules as a consequence of the lack of housing land, there is clearly scope for rapid expansion of population in certain places that will also distort efforts to attain an equitable balance of the number of electors in each Ward. Palgrave is potentially subject to a planning application for not less than 100 dwellings on a single site and with indications for a second site on the opposite side of the road. Whilst by no means certain at this stage, the information is offered to support the potential scale of increase in the number of registered electors within a short period of years.

2. Local Communities The Local Government Commission for England Review of Suffolk in 1994 noted the close affinity of residents with their local village and nearby town but a lower affinity for the District and the County. Curiously in Mid Suffolk, as in Forest Heath, affinity to the District was lowest. In general residents of ‘High Suffolk’ still feel remote and poorly served by their principal authorities. Palgrave Parish is rich in residents but generally poor in services and infrastructure, being almost entirely dependent on adjoining Diss (a shared local council, district council and county council boundary separates both), save for a primary school, community centre and limited employment on a business centre. Being closest to Diss it has less to do with other neighbouring local councils in the Ward save for shared concerns over roads, traffic and planning matters. The small primary school takes pupils from as well as Suffolk while the high schools in Diss and Eye (Hartismere) offer local pupils some choice for secondary education; Diss High School is considerably closer than Hartismere, the latter is served by school transport circulating around the various villages and groups of houses within its catchment area. In truth the only real connections Palgrave has with Eye are the high school, the privately-run recycling centre and as the base for the local police Safer Neighbourhood Team. The Community Centre, opened in 1986, is charity-owned and run, founded to serve Palgrave and Thrandeston, and now attracts members from the surrounding area as follows (as at July 2017): Palgrave (131); Wortham & Burgate (5); Thrandeston (4), Stuston (3), and Botesdale (2 each); Diss, Roydon and Bressingham in South Norfolk (40). This can in general be explained by members relocating from one District to another, through marriages and relationships that span the border, and the facilities and events offered by the Centre. The Anglican Church is represented by the North Hartismere Benefice, which has a peripatetic congregation for the parishes of Brome, Burgate, Oakley, Palgrave, Thrandeston and Wortham.

3. Effective and Convenient Local Government Effective Service Delivery and Representation Delivery of services to local communities works best where there is the closest degree of overlap between the providers. Maintaining close alignment with County Council division boundaries will, wherever possible, provide for a more effective overview of local needs and co-ordination in the provision of infrastructure, combined applications for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), school catchments and so on. This is especially important in the more rural areas where smaller settlements are dependent on those in the vicinity having some basic services, which in turn rely on nearby towns for employment, retail provision, banking, professional, healthcare and many other services. The Draft Babergh/Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan proposes that the Parishes of Palgrave, Stuston, Thrandeston and Wortham (but not Burgate, which is a combined Parish Council with Wortham) be allocated to the ‘Diss cluster’.

It is this hierarchy and absence of essential services in surrounding Parishes that has drawn together a group of 7 local councils to develop a Neighbourhood Plan. The Area is centred on Diss (Norfolk) and includes Roydon to the west, Burston & Shimpling to the north and Scole to the east in South Norfolk - an authority area where the Commission recently made recommendations - and Palgrave to the west, Stuston in the centre and Brome & Oakley to the east in Mid Suffolk. All of these local councils rely substantially on Diss rather than Mid Suffolk save for local government administration. It is noted that remoteness from the administration was an issue raised in Palgrave Parish Council’s response to the Local Government Commission for England Review of Suffolk in 1994; the situation has worsened since then with the closure of local offices, the nearest being in Eye - see below concerning relocation of the administrative offices out of Mid Suffolk District to , even further away from the Parishes and Wards in High Suffolk.

Reduction in Number of Councillors Mid Suffolk proposes and it appears that the Boundary Commission concurs with a reduction in the number of councillors from 40 to 34. As from May 2017 Mid Suffolk moved to a Leader-Cabinet style of government which imposes additional responsibility and accompanying workload on councillors selected to have specific functions to govern. This cannot be conducive to effective representation of the populace when Ward sizes and hence numbers of electors are to be proportionately increased. To add to this, the proposed move of headquarters to Endeavour House in Ipswich, outside of both Babergh and Mid Suffolk District boundaries, will increase travelling time and distance. Claims that this will be offset by technology-based access and so on are not robust in that the technology and the communications infrastructure in rural areas are not yet capable of supporting this ambition. Many issues raised by local councils and individuals demand face-to-face contact to adequately understand the issues and seek appropriate solutions.

Conclusion With larger Wards, more demands on fewer councillors and increasing public engagement demands from local communities, Ward Councillors will be hard-pressed to remain effective - especially if having to spend more time away from their Wards to where the officers are. They will become the sole face of the District Council - this will serve no-one well, least of all Ward Councillors.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Foote - CiLCA Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer