Draft proposals

Draft proposals for unitary local government in and Suffolk July 2008 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Boundary Committee: Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected]

© The Boundary Committee 2008

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 03114G Contents

What is the Boundary Committee for ?

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 The Committee’s approach 5 Engagement with stakeholders 5 General considerations: the context of modern local government 6 Specific considerations: how we have approached the review 9 Broad cross-section of support 15 Leadership 15 Deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities 17 Value-for-money services 18 Affordability 21

3 Concepts submitted to the Committee 23 Norfolk 23 Suffolk 29

4 and Waveney 35

5 Draft proposal for Norfolk 39 Other patterns 44

6 Draft proposal for Suffolk 51 Other pattern 60

7 What happens next? 63

Appendices

Appendix A – Other considerations 65

Appendix B – Mapping 67

What is the Boundary Committee for England?

The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. The Committee’s main role is to conduct electoral reviews of local authorities in England with the aim of ensuring the number of electors represented by each councillor is approximately the same. Other duties include reviewing local authority boundaries and advising the Government on local authority bids for unitary status.

Members of the Committee are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Jane Earl Robin Gray Professor Ron Johnston Joan Jones CBE Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Professor Colin Mellors

Director:

Archie Gall

Summary

On 6 February 2008 we were requested to advise the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on alternative unitary structures of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk. This request for advice followed bids for unitary status from City Council and Ipswich Borough Council.

On 7 July 2008 we published our draft proposals, on which comments are invited.

Our draft proposal for Norfolk is:

• a Norfolk unitary authority comprising the existing county of Norfolk and the Lowestoft area of Suffolk

Our draft proposal for Suffolk is:

• an Ipswich & Felixstowe unitary authority and a Suffolk unitary authority comprising the rest of the county apart from the Lowestoft area

Our proposal for Norfolk is set out in detail in chapter 5 of the report and for Suffolk in chapter 6. Maps illustrating our draft proposals are set out in Appendix B of the report.

Our approach to this review, and the general and specific considerations we have had regard to in conducting our work, are set out in chapter 2 of the report.

What happens next?

There will now be a period of 12 weeks, during which we welcome views on our draft proposals. All representations should be sent to reach us by 26 September 2008.

We have not finalised our proposals for unitary patterns of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk. In the light of representations received, we will review our draft proposals and consider whether they should be altered. It is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft proposals.

We have also included in the report other patterns of unitary local government that we considered had merit, which people may wish to bear in mind when considering the draft proposals.

In Norfolk we considered:

• a Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft unitary authority and a Norfolk unitary authority comprising the rest of the county

1 • a Norwich unitary authority on expanded boundaries and a Norfolk unitary authority comprising the rest of the county and the Lowestoft area of Suffolk

In Suffolk we considered:

• a Suffolk unitary authority comprising the existing county apart from the Lowestoft area

We welcome views and evidence from all those who have previously written to us and those we have not yet heard from.

The Committee places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way we deal with all representations. Accordingly, representations received will be made available for public inspection at our offices in Trevelyan House. Submissions will also be available on our website, www.boundarycommittee.org.uk

If you make comments during this period of the review, and do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary, but all information in responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law.

After 26 September 2008 we will consider all the representations we have received and start to formulate our final advice, which we have been asked to submit to the Secretary of State by 31 December 2008.

You can express your views by using our online form at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk, or by writing directly to: Review Manager (Norfolk and Suffolk Reviews) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Tel: 020 7271 0512 Fax: 020 7271 0505 Email: [email protected]

Once we have provided our advice there will then be a further period of four weeks during which representations may be made directly to the Secretary of State. She may then accept, reject or modify any proposal that we make. She may also ask us for more information. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide if and when any new unitary authorities are to be created.

2

Introduction

1.1 In October 2006, following the publication of the Local Government White Paper,1 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued an invitation to two-tier principal local authorities (district and county councils) in England to submit to her proposals for a change to unitary or single-tier status.2 Local authorities bidding for unitary status were asked to submit business cases that addressed the five criteria set out in the invitation document.

1.2 Proposals were received for the creation of 26 new unitary authorities and included a bid from Ipswich Borough Council (Ipswich) and Norwich City Council (Norwich) for unitary status on their existing boundaries. In July 2007 the Secretary of State announced that in her judgement there was not a reasonable likelihood of Norwich’s proposal, based on the city’s current boundaries, if implemented, achieving all the outcomes specified by the five criteria. In December 2007 the Secretary of State made a similar announcement in relation to Ipswich’s bid.

1.3 We have been asked by the Secretary of State under section 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to provide advice3 on whether there could be alternative proposals for a single-tier of local government for each of Ipswich and Norwich, and the whole or part of the surrounding Suffolk and Norfolk county areas respectively, that would have the capacity, if implemented, to meet the five criteria set out by the Secretary of State in her October 2006 invitation.

1.4 In relation to Suffolk, we are also asked to consider whether there is an alternative unitary proposal that might involve all or part of the district of Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. Similarly, in relation to Norfolk, we are asked whether there is an alternative unitary pattern that might involve all or part of Waveney District in Suffolk.

1.5 If having identified that there are alternative unitary proposals that would deliver the outcomes specified by the five criteria, the Secretary of State has asked us to identify which would better deliver the outcomes specified by the criteria.

1.6 There are a number of other, more general, considerations to which we are required to have regard in our work. These are set out in Appendix A.

1.7 The review is in four stages (Table 1). Stage One began on 3 March 2008, when we wrote to all the local authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk, inviting them to submit to us broad concepts for unitary structures for the county. The

1 Strong and Prosperous Communities (Cm 6939-1, October 2006) 2 Invitation to Councils (Communities and Local Government, October 2006) 3 Request to the Boundary Committee to advise (Communities and Local Government, 6 February 2008) – www.boundarycommittee.org.uk

3 term ‘concepts’ is discussed in more detail in the following chapter of this report. The closing date for the receipt of concepts was 11 April 2008.

Table 1: The stages of the review

Stage Dates Description

One 3 March – 11 April Commencement of review and submission of concepts for unitary patterns of local government

Two 14 April – 4 July The Committee considers concepts, seeks further information and prepares draft proposals

Three 7 July – 26 The Committee publishes draft proposals September report and invites representations on them

Four 29 September – 31 The Committee considers representations, December reaches conclusions and submits advice to the Secretary of State

1.8 Once we have submitted our advice at the end of the review there will be a further four-week period, during which time representations on the advice we have provided can be made direct to the Secretary of State. In the light of any such representations, the Secretary of State may accept, reject or modify our final proposals, or ask us for further information about them and then take a decision. No Order – the legal document that would implement the final proposals – may be made by the Secretary of State within a period of six weeks from 31 December 2008.

1.9 The review timetable is extremely challenging, both for the Committee and for those who have so far participated in the review. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to all the principal local authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk for the constructive and positive approach they have taken to our work, and for the assistance they have provided us during the initial stages of the review. For most, if not all, local authorities this review was totally unexpected and we recognise the challenges which it has imposed on them.

1.10 We are also grateful to our other stakeholders in Norfolk and Suffolk, parish and town councils, and the public, private and voluntary sectors, for their assistance and views on the most appropriate patterns of unitary local government for their county. We hope that they will continue to provide views and advice as the review progresses.

4 2 The Committee’s approach Engagement with stakeholders

2.1 Both the 2007 Act and our guidance from the Secretary of State make clear that the responsibility for developing a draft proposal for publication and the subsequent final proposal, rests with us. Unlike other reviews we have conducted, there is no provision in legislation for us to start the review with a public consultation exercise inviting the submission of proposals for change.

2.2 Nevertheless, the guidance recognises that we could not (nor would we wish to) develop draft proposals in isolation from those on whom they might have the most significant impact – the principal local authorities and residents in Norfolk and Suffolk. Throughout the process to date, we have sought to engage and work in partnership with those authorities in identifying potential patterns of unitary local government for the county. During Stage One of the review we held discussions with the leaders and chief executives of all principal authorities within each county, collectively. We also met them individually, usually on an all-party group leader basis, often more than once.

2.3 We also took the opportunity while working in each county to hold informal discussions with as wide a group of other stakeholders as was possible in the time available to us, such as Members of Parliament, parish and town councils, primary care trusts, the police authorities and strategic partnerships. These discussions were particularly helpful to us. We heard first hand from those working in each county in partnership with the principal authorities about their perceptions of current and future challenges for the delivery of public services, regeneration, community engagement and empowerment, and what patterns of unitary local government might best address those challenges. We also met with a number of groups and individuals in relation to the specific request in relation to Great Yarmouth and Waveney which helped inform our views in this area.

2.4 In starting our work we invited the County Council and district councils in each county to develop broad ‘concepts’ that we could consider, outlining their preferred patterns of unitary authorities and explaining how those patterns might address the first four of the five criteria. We were prepared to receive submissions from any interested individual or group but recognised that it would be local authorities that were most likely to be involved at this initial stage. In addition to concepts from authorities, we also received a number of submissions from political party groups and a variety of statutory bodies.

2.5 In summary, the five criteria say that any alternative unitary proposals we submit to the Secretary of State should, in aggregate:

• attract a broad cross-section of support • provide for strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership • deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities, so that all communities have power and resources to influence the decisions that affect them in their localities

5 • provide value-for-money services – services should be provided effectively, efficiently and in an integrated and coherent way, ultimately driving up customer satisfaction; and • be affordable – the change to a unitary structure should deliver value-for- money and be self-financing, with transitional costs being capable of being paid back within a five-year period

2.6 These criteria are discussed in the chapter below, in which we set out the specific considerations to which we have had regard.

2.7 In undertaking our work, we were mindful of the fact that reviews of this nature can be extremely disruptive to local government and resource- intensive in terms of both expenditure and staff time. We therefore emphasised that we were not seeking fully developed business cases in support of particular unitary patterns. Instead, we made clear that such concepts should be ‘thought pieces’, setting out the vision of the political leaders in each county on how they believe the challenges faced by their communities and citizens might best be addressed by their preferred unitary pattern.

2.8 Given the likely number of different concepts we expected to receive, we took the view that to test the affordability of each and every one would be wasteful of resources, particularly if, in our judgement, they failed to meet the other criteria. We were also mindful of our guidance from the Secretary of State, which makes clear that in the formulation of any draft proposal we should not be limited to assessing and choosing between concepts submitted by local government. We nevertheless advised the principal authorities that, in developing their concepts, they should be reasonably satisfied that they would meet the affordability test if we were to adopt any of them as our draft proposal.

2.9 By the end of Stage One we had received a wide range of different concepts and representations. All of these are available on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. We subsequently sought further information on a range of issues that we felt were unclear or needed further explanation. Again, all these requests for further information and the responses received can be viewed on our website. General considerations: the context of modern local government

2.10 The context of the current review of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk is very different from that of previous structural reviews carried out by the Local Government Commission during the 1990s or by the Boundary Committee during 2003-04. It has been triggered by bids from Ipswich Borough Council and Norwich City Council for unitary status on existing boundaries in relation to which the Secretary of State has asked for our advice.

6 2.11 The role of local government and the way in which it operates has changed considerably in recent years. While the range of direct services for which local authorities are responsible has remained broadly the same for many years, there has been wide recognition that councils need to change the way in which they work in order to achieve real improvements for their communities. Key changes to the role of local government the ‘well-being’ power in the Local Government Act 2000 (the 2000 Act), the increasing importance of community leadership and engagement as set out in the 2006 Local Government White Paper, and the development of Local Area Agreements (LAAs) from 2004 into the new LAA framework set down in the 2007 Act.

2.12 More recently, county councils and unitary local authorities have been encouraged to develop cross-boundary Multi-Area Agreements (MAAs) to improve economic prosperity for wider sub-regional areas. Similarly, the Government’s Public Service Agreements emphasise the need for local government to work with others in the delivery of services and address shared priorities. All of these highlight important changes in the landscape of local government.

2.13 Such changes are also evident in how modern local authorities are led and managed. The ‘committee system’ which predominated in local government, for example, was largely swept aside by the 2000 Act and new political decision-making arrangements introduced. The 2007 Act makes further changes to the political management structures available to local government by introducing the mayor and cabinet executive and the leader and cabinet executive models of governance. These are intended to strengthen the accountability of local authority leadership, increase the transparency of decision-making and make the role of councillors as leaders of their communities more explicit.

2.14 Local authorities have also been required to address the ‘efficiency agenda’ and to work more effectively to deliver better public services in order to fund improvements to front-line services. Efficiency gains also featured in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR07) and were reflected in the subsequent three-year local authority finance settlement for 2008-2011.

2.15 In areas where two-tier local government operates, county councils account for approximately 80% of local authority revenue spending (excluding spending on local authority housing). Table 2 details the allocation of local authority functions and services.

7 Table 2: Allocation of local authority functions and services

Upper-tier authorities Services District Unitary County councils authorities councils Education • • Housing • • Planning applications • • Strategic planning • • Transport planning • • Passenger transport • • Highways • • Fire •4 • Social services • • Libraries • • Leisure and recreation • • Waste collection • • Waste disposal • • Environmental health • • Revenue collection • • Source: Local Government Structure, Local Government Association (2008)

2.16 However, in addition to these specific services, local authorities are expected to respond to a number of other challenges, including:

• rising demands for adult social care due to long-term demographic changes; • environmental pressures; • an increasing place-shaping role; • rising expectations for modern and personalised services; and • the impact of legislative change arising from Government policy initiatives (e.g. Children Act 2004 and the Every Child Matters strategy document).

2.17 Performance and quality of service provision are increasingly important in local government, as reflected in a range of performance assessments. From April 2009 the Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPA) of local authorities will be replaced by Comprehensive Area Assessments (CAA). CAA will provide an assessment of the prospects for local areas (as opposed to the local authority) and the quality of life for people living there. This focus on ‘outcomes’ for local people requires CAA to look across councils, health bodies, police forces, fire and rescue authorities and others responsible for local public services, all of which are expected to work in partnership to tackle the challenges facing their communities.

2.18 All these factors have contributed to the development of significant organisational and service change, and in undertaking our work we have been mindful of the need to propose new authorities that will, in our judgement,

4 Joint fire authorities operate in counties with unitary authorities in them.

8 have the capacity and capability to offer community leadership and to respond to the range of demands on them now and for the reasonably foreseeable future.

2.19 We have no fixed view about the optimum size of a unitary authority, in either a geographical or a population sense, in terms of the potential to be a high performer in the delivery of services. Size is not a factor that appears in the Secretary of State’s guidance to us. While there is some evidence that population size has an effect on performance5 we have been more concerned to ensure that any new authority has the capacity to meet varying demands and priorities that will inevitably change over time, and to have sufficient influence and leverage when working alongside other local authorities or other bodies, especially in a regional context. Specific considerations: how we have approached the review

2.20 Legislation prescribes, and limits, the considerations we can take into account in this review. We are tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of State on whether there is an ‘alternative proposal for a single tier of local government’ for the borough of Ipswich and the city of Norwich and the whole or part of the surrounding respective county areas which would, in aggregate, have the capacity (if implemented) to meet the outcomes set out in the five criteria contained in the Secretary of State’s request for advice. We have also been specifically asked by the Secretary of State to provide advice on whether there could be a unitary authority for all or part of Suffolk with all or part of Great Yarmouth that that has the capacity to meet the five criteria. Similarly, we have been asked to provide advice on whether there could be a unitary authority for all or part of Norfolk including the whole or part of Waveney that has the capacity to meet the five criteria.

2.21 We have no power as part of this review to recommend alterations to the existing two-tier local government structure in the county. We could not propose, for example, changes to the boundaries of the borough of Ipswich and the city of Norwich and make consequential alterations to the boundaries of adjoining two-tier districts. Similarly, we cannot recommend the retention of a two-tier structure in preference to a unitary pattern. The status quo would only result if we were unable to identify any unitary pattern that meets the criteria in the Secretary of State’s guidance or if the Secretary of State decides not to implement our proposals.

2.22 The 2007 Act makes quite clear that our task at this stage of the review is to set out a draft proposal for each county and seek views on those proposals. We have no power to seek views on a range of potential options for structural change. However, in Norfolk and Suffolk we have considered further patterns that might also meet the Secretary of State’s criteria against which our preferred draft proposal can be assessed. Interested parties may

5 Population Size and Local Authority Performance (Communities and Local Government, October 2006)

9 wish to have these further patterns in mind when commenting on our draft proposals.

2.23 Also, even with the assistance of the Secretary of State’s guidance and the five criteria it sets out, there is no simple test which can be applied to determine whether a particular pattern of unitary local government is the right one for a given area. Instead, we need to consider a fairly complex array of considerations and to exercise our judgement in the light of the evidence and information available to us.

2.24 The diversity, in terms of their geography and population, of the local authorities comprising the county areas under review, together with the social and economic issues they face, raises particular challenges for us (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3: Existing authorities in Norfolk – population, area and population density

Local authority Population Area (hectares) Population per (2001) hectare

Norfolk County 796,728 537,087 1.48 Council

Breckland DC 121,418 130,521 0.93

Broadland DC 118,513 55,240 2.15

Great Yarmouth BC 90,810 17,398 5.22

King’s Lynn & West 135,345 142,876 0.95 Norfolk BC

North Norfolk DC 98,382 96,379 1.02

Norwich CC 121,550 3,902 31.15

South Norfolk DC 110,710 90,771 1.22

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census) Note: DC = district council, BC = borough council, CC = city council

10 Table 4: Existing authorities in Suffolk – population, area and population density

Local authority Population Area (hectares) Population per (2001) hectare

Suffolk County 668,553 380,086 1.76 Council

Babergh DC 83,461 59,378 1.41

Forest Heath DC 55,510 37,771 1.47

Ipswich BC 117,069 3,942 29.70

Mid Suffolk DC 86,837 87,107 1.00

St Edmundsbury BC 98,193 65,696 1.49

Suffolk Coastal DC 115,141 89,153 1.29

Waveney DC 112,342 37,039 3.03

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census) Note: DC = district council, BC = borough council

2.25 Maps 1 and 2 show the existing local authority boundaries in Norfolk and Suffolk respectively, the main population centres, important geographical features and communication and transport links within the county. Map 3 shows the existing borough of Great Yarmouth and the existing district of Waveney.

11 Map 1: Existing arrangements in Norfolk

SHERINGHAMSHERINGHAMSHERINGHAM Population Areas n CROMERCROMERCROMER Main Roads

HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n Railways HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n

5

n FAKENHAMFAKENHAMFAKENHAM n NORTHNORTHNORTH WALSHAM WALSHAMWALSHAM

AYLSHAMAYLSHAMAYLSHAM n

KING'SKING'SKING'S LYNN LYNNLYNN

n Norfolk County 2

DEREHAMDEREHAMDEREHAM 4 n 3 n CAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEA SWAFFHAMSWAFFHAMSWAFFHAM

NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n 6n NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n GREATGREAT YARMOUTHYARMOUTHYARMOUTH TT HH EE BB RR OO AA DD SS n 1 WYMONDHAMWYMONDHAM

DOWNHAMDOWNHAMDOWNHAM n MARKETMARKET n WATTONWATTON 7

LONGLONGLONG STRATTON STRATTONSTRATTON n

THETFORDTHETFORDTHETFORD n Key to Districts DISSDISSDISS Key 1 Breckland 5 n 2 6 Norwich Existing County Boundary Existing District Boundary 3 Great Yarmouth 7 Norfolk and Suffolk Broads 4 King's Lynn and West Norfolk © Crown Copyright 2008 Map 2: Existing arrangements in Suffolk Key Population Areas Existing County Boundary Main Roads Existing District Boundary Railways Norfolk and Suffolk Broads n LOWESTOFTLOWESTOFT n BRANDONBRANDON n BECCLESBECCLES BUNGAYBUNGAY BECCLESBECCLES n BUNGAYBUNGAY 77

HALESWORTHHALESWORTH n MILDENHALLMILDENHALL n 22 n EYEEYE

55 44 n 44 n n Suffolk County SAXMUNDHAMSAXMUNDHAM BURYBURY STST EDMUNDSEDMUNDS NEWMARKETNEWMARKET STOWMARKETSTOWMARKET n 66

n NEEDHAMNEEDHAM MARKETMARKET n HAVERHILLHAVERHILL WOODBRIDGEWOODBRIDGE n n33 33 IPSWICHIPSWICHIPSWICH SUDBURYSUDBURY n n SUDBURYSUDBURY 11 HADLEIGHHADLEIGH

Key to Districts n 1 Babergh 5 St Edmundsbury FELIXSTOWEFELIXSTOWE 2 Forest Heath 6 Suffolk Coastal 3 Ipswich 7 Waveney 4 Mid Suffolk © Crown Copyright 2008 Map 3: Existing arrangements in Great Yarmouth and Waveney

4

HOVETONHOVETON n HEMSBYHEMSBY n WROXHAMWROXHAM n HEMSBYHEMSBY

1 2 n CAISTER-CAISTER- ON-SEAON-SEA ACLEACLE n 5 NORWICHNORWICH BRUNDALLBRUNDALL n n n GREATGREAT YARMOUTHYARMOUTH

n PORINGLANDPORINGLAND Norfolk County n LODDONLODDON 6

LOWESTOFTLOWESTOFT n

n n BECCLESBECCLES BUNGAYBUNGAY

n KESSINGLANDKESSINGLAND 8 HARLESTONHARLESTON

n Suffolk County

3 HALESWORTHHALESWORTH SOUTHWOLDSOUTHWOLD n SOUTHWOLDSOUTHWOLD © Crown Copyright 2008 n Population Areas Main Roads 7 Railways Key to Districts Major Rivers 1 Broadland 5 Norwich 2 Great Yarmouth 6 South Norfolk Key 3 Mid Suffolk 7 Suffolk Coastal Existing County Boundary 4 North Norfolk 8 Waveney Existing District Boundary 14 Broad cross-section of support

2.26 Our guidance from the Secretary of State makes clear that the volume of representations for or against a particular draft proposal should not, of itself, be considered to provide a definitive view of that proposal’s merits. Instead, the criteria against which we are asked to make our judgements, states that ‘the change to a unitary structure, if it were to be made, should at least have a measure of support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens’.

2.27 In reaching conclusions on our draft proposal for each county we have, as discussed above, sought to engage with and seek the views of a wide range of key local government partners and stakeholders, including parish and town councils, MPs, police and fire services, primary care trusts, local strategic partnerships, business and voluntary groups and the Regional Development Agency. Together with the views of individual local authorities in the area under review, our discussions with these partners and stakeholders have informed and influenced our thinking. We now move forward to seeking views more specifically on our draft proposals.

2.28 All representations we receive on our draft proposals by 26 September 2008 will be taken into account. However, being mindful of the Secretary of State’s guidance, representations that are well argued and provide persuasive evidence in support of the arguments are likely to carry more weight with us.

2.29 We recognise that many people find the prospect of a move to unitary local government unwelcome or are indifferent to change. They may be content with the current two-tier structure of county and district councils in their area and see no need to alter arrangements with which they are familiar. It is no part of our task to ‘champion’ unitary structures over two-tier, or vice versa. Rather, as indicated above, we are asked by the Secretary of State whether there is a viable unitary pattern of local government in each county. In our view at this stage, having weighed all the evidence received and the information we have collected, this would appear to be the case. Leadership

2.30 Strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership in the sense that it reflects the needs and aspirations of communities can, and should, operate at more than one level. It is linked to community identity and the confidence that citizens have that their democratic representatives understand the needs of their communities and have the influence to promote and defend their interests at local, regional, national and European levels.

2.31 This is compatible with the Secretary of State’s guidance that a new unitary structure should provide strategic leadership that is characterised by:

• strong, stable mandates, consistent with enabling local authorities to take a long-term, strategic view of the needs of their area, and how best

15 to promote that area’s prosperity, achieve economic development, and allow the taking of tough decisions where necessary • an outward-orientation, consistent with a growing need to represent the community in discussions and debates with organisations and parts of government at local, regional and national levels eg through LAAs. • clear and direct accountability, consistent with making powerful local leaders more responsive and responsible, and tacking disengagement and powerlessness by shortening the distance between governors and governed • leaders with personal visibility, consistent with the need to bring coherence to an increasingly complex landscape of local actors and partnerships

2.32 Under the 2000 Act local authorities were able to select one of four options for their model of political leadership: a council leader with a cabinet; a directly elected mayor with a cabinet; a directly elected mayor with a council manager; or 'alternative arrangements' of a streamlined committee system (open only to small local authorities). The 2007 Act provides for the discontinuance of one of the forms of executive, the mayor and council manager executive, and it introduced a new-style leader and cabinet executive. Any council in England which operates executive arrangements is required to operate a leader and cabinet executive or a mayor and cabinet executive. In both cases the maximum size of the cabinet executive is ten.

2.33 Whichever executive model is selected, one of the critical factors for an effective decision-making structure relates to the extent to which the leadership proposes to delegate responsibilities to the executive members and the clarity of lines of responsibility. While the choice of executive model does not by itself deliver strong strategic leadership, we consider it is a critical factor in determining whether the characteristics identified by the Secretary of State can be met.

2.34 In order to pursue the Government’s commitment to improve public services, the 2006 Local Government White Paper envisaged the development of a new performance framework for local authority services. Key to improving service delivery is a strong focus on performance management coupled with effective leadership on delivery. We believe, therefore, that proposals for managing performance in any new structure should take into account the need for local authorities to work in partnership, to challenge performance and to support improvement.

2.35 Strategic leadership is needed to help bring together the various local agencies and to provide a longer-term vision of how the partners can address local problems and challenges within the regional and national context. The vision can be articulated through a sustainable community strategy and developed within the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and LAA framework. Leaders of local authorities should be well placed to ensure effective partnership working through the provision of strategic leadership to their LSP. There should also be recognition that other elected members have a role to play in both executive and scrutiny roles for the work of the LSP.

16 2.36 The 2007 Act makes provision for overview and scrutiny committees and provides powers for those committees to question members of the authority (including the leadership) and to require information from partner authorities. We believe, therefore, that proposals for overview and scrutiny committees within a new authority should provide for a positive role in terms of holding the leadership to account for performance and improvement in the delivery of local services.

2.37 It is recognised that there can be no guarantee that a particular unitary solution or executive model will deliver strong, effective and accountable leadership or that the outcome will be a leader with high personal visibility. Proposals for the implementation of a particular executive model should provide evidence of a stable and accountable structure that seeks to facilitate effective decision-making, performance management and partnership working, thereby providing an environment in which quality services can be delivered to local people. Deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities

2.38 The Local Government White Paper 2006 envisaged that people should receive services tailored to their individual situation. Achievement of this over- arching aim requires detailed understanding of the needs and expectations of individuals and communities articulated through direct engagement between the local authority and its citizens. The structures, systems and processes for engagement should be two-way in order to allow individuals to participate in and influence decisions about service delivery and for the local authority to communicate, inform and consult with those individuals.

2.39 We believe that proposals for engagement and consultation with citizens, particularly those living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, need to identify clear and appropriate arrangements for effective communication, in order to best ensure that their needs are met

2.40 Effective empowerment of citizens and communities should demonstrate evidence of:

• clarity of roles and responsibilities for the authority’s leadership, councillors and staff • governance structures that involve and engage with all residents • community forums with real power to influence choice in local services • area (or neighbourhood) arrangements that reflect community identities and that have appropriate capacity and levels of support in order to have an effective voice and to deliver devolved functions • detailed role descriptions and adequate resources to enable councillors to represent their local communities effectively

2.41 The Government’s aspirations for neighbourhood empowerment were set out in guidance to local authorities on enhancing capacity for public

17 participation.6 The guidance recognised that devolving the delivery of services to the neighbourhood level is an important way of securing sustainable improvements in public services and re-engaging citizens with government. There are a number of ways in which more localised forms of governance – whether through the neighbourhood management of services, area committees of parish councils, asset management schemes or parish councils – can help to foster effective citizenship. We have had regard to the Government’s aspirations concerning citizenship and community empowerment in considering the concepts developed for us by local authorities and others when shaping our draft proposals.

2.42 We have also had regard to the ways in which the new authorities propose to relate to town and parish councils (where they exist) and to the roles that this tier of local government might play in relation to any local governance arrangements. Parish and town councils can provide clear and accountable arrangements for decision-making at the community level. Their role can be further enhanced through active support from principal authorities, for example through the Quality Parish Initiative.

2.43 The concepts we received recognised that not all areas under consideration are fully parished, or that all parish and town councils have either the capacity or the willingness to take on further responsibilities. Instead, some have put forward some form of area-based community empowerment arrangements. These typically provide for complete geographic coverage of the areas under review; consideration of delegated decision- making and devolved budgets; recognition of existing structures such as parish networks based on market towns; the roles and interaction with unitary councillors and the unitary council, partner and stakeholder involvement; and the relationship with constituent parish and town councils.

2.44 We have been interested in how the proposed area-based structures have addressed any significant or major urban conurbations. In our view, schemes for neighbourhood empowerment need to provide the necessary focus – rural and/or urban – and have clarity in terms of the lines of accountability from the lowest level of community engagement through to the unitary council and its leadership and also in terms of the extent of devolved functions, powers and responsibilities. There is also an imperative to ensure that, as far as possible, no individual citizen or community is disadvantaged by any proposals and that there is equality of opportunity to participate in local affairs. Value-for-money services

2.45 The Secretary of State’s guidance emphasises the importance of new unitary authorities delivering effective and efficient services in an integrated and coherent way, maximising collaboration and technology. It also refers to ‘services which people use because they value them, not because they have no alternative’.

6 Effective Citizenship and Community Empowerment, 2006

18 2.46 The value placed by local residents on quality service delivery is demonstrated by quantitative research we commissioned as part of our 2003/04 review of local government structure in the three northern regions (Table 5).

Table 5: Top four issues to be taken into account, according to local residents in the three northern regions

County North Cheshire Cumbria Lancashire Northumberland Durham Yorkshire

Responding Quality of Quality of Responding Quality of Quality of to local services services to local services (28%) services people’s (25%) (22%) people’s (24%) wishes wishes (23%) (25%)

Quality of Responding Responding Quality of Responding to Responding services to local to local services local people’s to local (22%) people’s people’s (23%) wishes (20%) people’s wishes wishes wishes (21%) (21%) (23%)

Being Being Being Being Cost of service Cost of accountable accountable accountable accountable (16%) service to local to local to local to local (15%) people people people people (16%) (16%) (17%) (16%)

Cost of Cost of Cost of Cost of Being Being service service service service accountable to accountable (14%) (14%) (14%) (14%) local people to local (14%) people (15%)

Source: MORI, October 2003

2.47 Earlier in this chapter we commented on the increasingly important role partnerships play in supporting the delivery of a wide range of priorities and services. Many of the concepts we received emphasised the benefits of delivering services through partnerships or joint arrangements with other local authorities in some form or another. Many district councils already have such arrangements in place for the delivery of their current functions.

2.48 However, it seems to us that the terms ‘partnerships’ and ‘joint arrangements’ are often used interchangeably to refer to a wide range of very different working arrangements. They range from statutory agreements7 to more innovative ways of working which the Government actively encourages to improve the quality of services, or to tackle problems that cut across

7 Arising from section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972

19 organisational boundaries. These arrangements can include partnerships associated with the delivery of major services or projects, for example between adult care services and health service providers. Another form of partnership is the LSP – a non-statutory partnership that brings together the major service providers and stakeholders in a locality to develop shared views and coordinate service provision and policy development. In addition, there are contractual partnerships that cross the whole spectrum of local government functions, such as in the procurement of services.

2.49 This spectrum of methods of service delivery may involve ‘joint arrangements’ and other forms of partnership in differing degrees. For example, a local authority may arrange for the delivery of the whole of a service for which it is responsible through another local authority, or two or more local authorities may arrange to deliver such services jointly. Alternatively, an authority may choose to deliver a service in partnership with one or more non-local authority agencies (whether in the public, commercial or voluntary sectors). Similarly, a local authority may deliver a service under joint arrangements with another local authority, which in turn procures that service from or with the non-local authority sector.

2.50 These are all proper mechanisms for a local authority to secure the effective provision of a service for which it is responsible and we are supportive of appropriate partnership working. At the same time, however, we are conscious that extensive use of joint arrangements – that is, the involvement of a plurality of local authorities – in the provision of a service increases the risk that lines of local accountability may be blurred. One of the stated advantages of unitary local government over two-tier structures is that a single local authority has clear responsibility for providing a range of services. Also, if a major service, such as children’s and young people's services, can only be delivered through joint arrangements, we are inevitably led to question the viability of that particular pattern of unitary local government.

2.51 Accordingly, we have tended towards a preference that any new unitary authority should be capable of providing or procuring, without recourse to formal joint arrangements, most or all of the full range of local government services. Joint or partnership working between local authorities may provide an economic, effective and efficient means of providing services, but in our view such arrangements should not be essential to the delivery of quality services. Instead, we have sought to arrive at unitary authorities of sufficient capacity to ensure that they have the maximum flexibility in deciding how local services will be provided, whether directly by the council concerned or through some other arrangement.

2.52 It is a matter of judgement for the potential new authorities whether, and to what extent, arrangements between authorities or groups of authorities might be part of service delivery mechanisms, and to what extent they would serve to cloud accountability, bearing in mind the recognition of a ‘mixed economy’ in service provision. However, this is but one consideration and, as will be clear from this report as a whole, our draft proposals are based on many other factors besides.

20 Affordability

2.53 The Secretary of State’s guidance to us makes clear that whatever pattern of unitary local government we advise should be established in any area, it must be affordable. In particular, the transitional costs of any change must be capable of being paid back within five years and, of particular concern to residents, all costs associated with structural change must be met locally without increasing council tax for the specific purpose of meeting transition costs.

2.54 The criteria set out in the guidance, including that of affordability, are the same as those used to judge the viability of the bids for unitary status submitted to the Secretary of State following publication of the 2006 Local Government White Paper. The Secretary of State’s requirement at that time was that any proposals for unitary status should be made on the basis of existing local authority administrative boundaries, or amalgams of them. Accordingly, ‘bidding’ authorities would have found the issue of ensuring the costs of change were met without any increase in council tax relatively straightforward to address.

2.55 Our task is somewhat greater, given that we are looking at unitary structures extending across whole county areas. Indeed, we have intentionally taken the approach that we should not be constrained by existing district council administrative boundaries. Accordingly, in developing the methodology for assessing the affordability of our draft proposals we have taken the view that, as a minimum, council tax should not increase across the county area as a whole as a consequence of transitional costs. Nevertheless, given that council tax levels vary from district to district the effect of our draft proposal means that there will need to be some equalisation of council tax levels across the county.

2.56 We have not sought at this stage to assess the affordability of our draft proposals. Given the number of alternative patterns of unitary local authorities that have been suggested to us since the start of our work, and the resource cost to local authorities in providing us with the necessary financial information, we took a decision early in the review process to assess affordability only once we had reached a conclusion on our draft proposals, and once we had published them for public comment. Local authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk will be providing financial information on each of the patterns of unitary authorities laid out in this report. We have requested this information by 5 September 2008. This information will help inform our view in assessing the affordability of any new unitary authority.

21 22 3 Concepts submitted to the Committee Norfolk

3.1 We received a number of concepts for patterns of new unitary authorities during Stage One of the review. Proponents included the County Council, six of the seven district councils and a number of political groups. All submissions are available on our website. The population figures given below were provided by the proponent(s) of each concept and we note that there are some inconsistencies between the figures provided.

Concept A – one unitary authority

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Norfolk The county of Norfolk 796,728

3.2 The County Council proposed a new unitary authority based on the existing county boundary.

Concept B – two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Norwich & East Norfolk Broadland, Great 574,595 Yarmouth, Norwich, South Norfolk and parts of Breckland and North Norfolk

West Norfolk King’s Lynn & West 235,005 Norfolk and parts of Breckland and North Norfolk

3.3 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council proposed two unitary authorities for Norfolk, based on an east-west division of the county. This proposal was also the joint second preference of Norfolk County Council.

23 Concept C – two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Norfolk Breckland, Great 659,767 Yarmouth, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, North Norfolk and parts of Broadland and South Norfolk

Norwich City Norwich and parts of 208,661 Broadland and South Norfolk

3.4 Norfolk County Council’s joint second preference was for two unitary authorities, based on a division of the county between an enlarged Norwich area and the remainder. While not specifically supporting this proposal, Norwich City Council acknowledged that it would meet the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s request for advice.

Concept D – three unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Norfolk Coastal Great Yarmouth, North 278,000 Norfolk and parts of Broadland and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk

Norfolk Rural Breckland and parts of 318,000 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and South Norfolk

Greater Norwich Norwich and parts of 217,000 Broadland and South Norfolk

3.5 Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and North Norfolk District Council proposed three unitary authorities for Norfolk. Norwich City Council also put this option forward as a joint first preference. Outside the unitary authority based on Norwich, the county would be broadly divided on north/south lines.

24 Concept E – three unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Central Norfolk Broadland, Norwich, Not provided – South Norfolk and approximate boundaries parts of Breckland only

Norfolk Coastal Great Yarmouth and As above parts of North Norfolk

West Norfolk King’s Lynn & West As above Norfolk and parts of North Norfolk and Breckland

3.6 Norfolk Liberal Democrats proposed three unitary authorities for Norfolk. Their preferred model would provide for a large Central Norfolk unitary authority based on Norwich but which would also include a large rural area. The remainder of the county would be divided between coastal and western unitary authorities.

3.7 It also put forward a variation to this concept, in the event that a Great Yarmouth and Waveney unitary authority was seen to be feasible. It proposed a Great Yarmouth and Waveney authority, with the remainder of the county being divided on east/west lines in a manner similar to that envisaged by King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council.

Concept F – four unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

North & East Norfolk Great Yarmouth and 229,054 parts of Broadland and North Norfolk

Greater Norwich Norwich and parts of 211,591 Broadland and South Norfolk

Central & South Norfolk Parts of Breckland and 211,231 South Norfolk

West Norfolk King’s Lynn & West 174,049 Norfolk and parts of Breckland and North Norfolk

25 3.8 South Norfolk District Council proposed four unitary authorities for Norfolk. Norwich City Council also put this option forward as a joint first preference. As well as a unitary authority based on Norwich, the east and centre of the county would be broadly divided on north/south lines, with a fourth authority in the west.

Concept G – four unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Great Yarmouth & Great Yarmouth and Approx. 220,000 Waveney Waveney

North Norfolk North Norfolk and parts Approx. 240,000 of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, Breckland and Broadland

Norwich City Norwich and parts of Approx. 220,000 Broadland and South Norfolk

South Norfolk Parts of Breckland, Approx. 277,000 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, South Norfolk and Broadland

3.9 The Labour groups on Norfolk County Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council proposed four unitary authorities for Norfolk and the district of Waveney in Suffolk. They proposed using parliamentary constituency boundaries as the ‘building blocks’ for the new authorities. The Labour groups on Suffolk County Council and Waveney District Council also supported a Great Yarmouth and Waveney unitary authority based on parliamentary constituency boundaries.

Other concepts

3.10 We received several other proposals for patterns of unitary local government in Norfolk. The Strategic Health Authority proposed one unitary authority comprising Great Yarmouth borough and Waveney district, with the other proposed authority comprising the remainder of Norfolk county.

3.11 In addition to the above, Norfolk County Council also expressed the feasibility for a two unitary pattern which encompassed a Norwich and Great Yarmouth ‘corridor’ as one unitary, and the wider remaining Norfolk as the second unitary authority.

26 3.12 Norwich & Norfolk Green Parties proposed five unitary authorities for Norfolk which also included the urban areas of Waveney in Suffolk. The proponents envisaged one unitary authority based on a Greater Norwich and a second on Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft on the coast. The centre and east of the county would be divided on north/south lines, with a fifth unitary authority in the west of the county.

3.13 A local resident proposed four unitary authorities for Norfolk and part of Suffolk. He envisaged a unitary authority comprising the northern part of Norfolk county, the southern part of Norfolk county, a unitary Norwich and a Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft unitary authority.

Other representations

3.14 During Stages One and Two we received a number of other representations in relation to Norfolk. These included representations from Tony Wright MP, Great Yarmouth & Waveney Primary Care Trust, James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk Chamber of Commerce, Norfolk Constabulary, the Norfolk County Association of Parish and Town Councils, Norfolk Police Authority and Norfolk Primary Care Trust. We also received the views of a number of councillors, parish and town councils, private companies, voluntary organisations and individuals.

3.15 Many respondents wrote to support or oppose the concepts for new unitary authorities that we had received. Broadland District Council did not express a preference for any pattern of unitary authorities for Norfolk. Instead, it provided a preliminary indication of how, in principle, various concepts might perform against criteria of its own devising.

3.16 A number of respondents, including Breckland and South Norfolk district councils, also put forward alternative boundaries for the proposed enlarged Norwich unitary authority. Respondents considered that these alternatives would either better reflect community identities and interests on the periphery of Norwich, or increase the viability of a city authority.

3.17 A number of the submissions made general comments in support of or opposition to the concepts we have received.

27 28 Concepts received for Suffolk

3.18 We received a number of concepts for patterns of new unitary authorities during Stage One of the review. Proponents included the County Council, six of the seven district councils and a number of political groups. All concepts are available to be viewed on our website and are outlined below. The population figures given below were provided by the proponent(s) of each concept and we note that there are some inconsistencies between the figures provided.

Concept A - one unitary authority

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Suffolk County The county of Suffolk 700,000

3.19 The County Council and Mid Suffolk District Council proposed a new unitary authority based on the existing county boundaries, referred to as the ‘One Suffolk’ concept. Babergh District Council also chose this as their second preference.

Concept B – two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

East Suffolk Waveney, Suffolk 344,552 Coastal, Ipswich, part of Babergh and Mid Suffolk

West Suffolk Forest Heath, St 324,001 Edmundsbury, part of Babergh and Mid Suffolk

3.20 Forest Heath, St Edmundsbury and Suffolk Coastal District Council Liberal Democrat Group supported two unitary authorities based on an east/west split for the county. Babergh District Council also chose this as their first preference. However, the exact boundary of the split differed between Forest Heath, St Edmundsbury and Babergh district councils.

29 Concept C - two unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

North Haven Ipswich, part of Suffolk 200–225,000 Coastal, Babergh and Mid Suffolk

Northern Suffolk Forest Heath, St 475–500,000 Edmundsbury, Waveney, part of Babergh, Mid Suffolk, and Suffolk Coastal

3.21 Suffolk County Council Liberal Democrats supported two unitary authorities under its ‘Option B’. This included a North Haven unitary authority which would take in the communities of Ipswich and Felixstowe and stretch to Hadleigh, beyond the A12. Northern Suffolk would cover of the rest of Suffolk, including the whole of Waveney.

Concept D three unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Extended Urban Ipswich Ipswich, part of Suffolk 154,000 Coastal and Babergh

East Suffolk Waveney, part of 269,000 Suffolk Coastal, Mid Suffolk and Babergh

West Suffolk Forest Heath, St 267,000 Edmundsbury, part of Babergh and Mid Suffolk

3.22 Ipswich Borough Council (Option 1), Suffolk Coastal District Council, St Edmundsbury Borough Council and Waveney District Council all supported the creation of three unitary authorities. The extended boundaries of Ipswich would reflect the natural urban area taking into account projected future development and growth.

30 Concept E – three unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Northern Haven Gateway Ipswich, part of Suffolk 210,000 Coastal, Babergh and Mid Suffolk

East Suffolk Waveney, part of 197,000 Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk

West Suffolk Forest Heath, St 283,000 Edmundsbury, part of Babergh and Mid Suffolk

3.23 Ipswich Borough Council (Option 3) and Suffolk County Council Liberal Democrats (Option A) supported three unitary authorities. This included a North Haven unitary authority which would take in the communities of Ipswich and Felixstowe and stretch to Hadleigh beyond the A12. East Suffolk would include the eastern half of Suffolk taking in the whole of Waveney. West Suffolk would cover the rest of Suffolk including Stowmarket.

Concept F – four unitary authorities

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population

Great Yarmouth and Great Yarmouth and 208-220,000 Waveney Waveney (various boundaries)

Urban Ipswich Ipswich and part of 130,000 Babergh and Suffolk Coastal

East Suffolk Part of Suffolk Coastal, 213,000 Mid Suffolk and Babergh

West Suffolk Forest Heath, St 231,000 Edmundsbury, part of Mid Suffolk and Babergh

3.24 Ipswich Borough Council (Option 2) and the Labour groups on Suffolk County Council, Waveney District Council, Norfolk County Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council all supported this pattern of unitary authorities. We

31 received various options regarding the boundary for a Great Yarmouth and Waveney unitary authority; ranging from the inclusion of the whole of the borough of Great Yarmouth with Waveney district to using the parliamentary constituency boundaries of Great Yarmouth and Waveney. The boundaries of an urban Ipswich envisaged under this concept would include the immediately neighbouring parishes to take account of changes to the urban settlement.

3.25 A number of respondents supported a Great Yarmouth & Waveney unitary authority, including Tony Wright MP, Bob Blizzard MP, Great Yarmouth & Waveney PCT, Lowestoft & Waveney Chamber of Commerce and a local resident. Chris Mole MP supported three unitary authorities: a unitary authority comprising part of Great Yarmouth and part of Waveney; a unitary Ipswich on slightly expanded boundaries; and a unitary authority compromising the rest of Suffolk. A Great Yarmouth & Waveney unitary authority was opposed by six respondents.

Other concepts

3.26 We received several other proposals for patterns of unitary local government in Suffolk. The East of England Strategic Health Authority proposed one unitary authority comprising Great Yarmouth borough and Waveney district, with the other proposed authority comprising the remainder of Suffolk county.

3.27 The Suffolk Together, Green and Independent group on Mid Suffolk District Council advocated four unitary authorities based around: Suffolk Coastal and Waveney; Ipswich (and surrounding parishes already part of the urban conurbation); Babergh and Mid Suffolk; and St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath.

Other representations

3.28 During Stages One and Two we also received a number of other representations in relation to Suffolk. These included representations from Suffolk Police Constabulary and Suffolk Primary Care Trust. We also received the views of a number of councillors, parish and town councils, private companies, voluntary organisations and individuals.

3.29 Babergh District Council provided a preliminary indication of how, in principle, concepts submitted by others might perform against the five criteria. After assessing the various concepts, Babergh District Council saw merits in both a Unitary Suffolk and an East and West unitary Suffolk.

3.30 We received support for authorities based on an east/west divide from Richard Spring MP, a number of parish councils and local residents citing commonality of interests in the respective areas as the main factor. We also received some support for unitary authorities based on an Ipswich/east/west split.

3.31 A number of parish councils that are outside the existing Ipswich borough boundary opposed any proposal that would result in their inclusion

32 with the town. We received both support and opposition for a unitary Suffolk county from community groups and local residents citing the importance of interacting with and dealing with local issues as a critical factor.

3.32 A few residents suggested that there would be merit in moving Newmarket parish and Exning parish from Suffolk into the county of Cambridgeshire. However, the Secretary of State has asked for our advice in relation to Norfolk and Suffolk only and their common boundary in the Great Yarmouth/Waveney area. In any event, we consider that any boundary anomalies in the Newmarket area would best be considered as part of a specific administrative boundary review should one take place at a later date.

33 34 4 Great Yarmouth and Waveney

4.1 As indicated earlier, a specific feature of the request from the Secretary of State was to consider:

• whether there could be a unitary proposal for Suffolk together with whole or part of the borough of Great Yarmouth (in Norfolk) that would have the capacity, if implemented, to deliver the outcomes specified by the five criteria; and • whether there could be a unitary proposal for Norfolk together with whole or part of the district of Waveney (in Suffolk) that would have the capacity, if implemented, to deliver the outcomes specified by the five criteria

4.2 In presenting our proposals, therefore, we are required to reach a view on these specific questions. To assist us in this, besides inviting submissions from local authorities and other interested partners, we met with groups of local stakeholders from business, community and voluntary interests based in and around the Great Yarmouth/Lowestoft area. It was clear both from these meetings and from the submissions already referred to, that there are strong and often conflicting views about this matter. This aspect of the request from the Secretary of State also means that we have to arrive at a proposal for the area that is compatible with any pattern of unitary local government that we put forward for the remainder of both Norfolk and Suffolk.

4.3 Having considered the available evidence, we recognise that a number of factors link together the coastal towns of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft (in Waveney district):

• their peripheral nature within their respective counties, with relatively poor communication links • low levels of educational attainment • high levels of deprivation • high unemployment • difficulty in attracting a skilled workforce to the area • inclusion in the same economic sub-region • the need for substantial urban regeneration • the importance of the tourism and emerging energy industries • the patterns of some public and voluntary sector bodies (e.g. the Primary Care Trust, 1st East) which work across the county boundary.

4.4 At the same time, we received other evidence that some of these factors also connect Great Yarmouth with parts of the North Norfolk district area. The role of Norwich as an economic driver for the northern part of the East of England region, as identified by the East of England Development Agency (EEDA), is clearly significant for the whole of this area.

4.5 We also noted that, in Waveney, the needs and issues for people living and working in the rural south and west of the district (e.g. around the towns of Beccles, Halesworth and Southwold) may be very different from those living

35 in Lowestoft. Potentially, there may be more synergies between the latter areas and the rural and market town communities in Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal. What is clear to us is that social and economic linkages between communities of interest in this part of Norfolk and Suffolk are complex.

4.6 We received support for a cross-county unitary authority in this area, with various boundaries, including using the existing district boundaries of Great Yarmouth and Waveney and the parliamentary constituencies. While this concept would link Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, two towns with similar interests and common challenges, it would not in our view necessarily recognise the multiplicity of social and economic connections they have with other areas. We were particularly concerned that the concept would not reflect the interests of the rural community in the south of the district of Waveney.

4.7 It is also clear that, notwithstanding the level of inward investment in recent years, the challenges facing local government and its partners in Great Yarmouth and Waveney are considerable. We consider that there would be significant risks in creating a unitary authority based on two existing local authorities where performance is currently uneven. We also note a recent (May 2008) financial audit conducted by Waveney District Council which highlighted serious and substantial risks facing the authority. In addition, we have concerns about the strategic capacity of a ‘Yartoft’ authority, even in partnership with other public sector bodies, to address the issues facing it in the fields of health, education, deprivation and regeneration.

4.8 We therefore consider that creating a unitary authority comprising the whole of Great Yarmouth and Waveney districts – and only these districts – would carry considerable risks. Similarly, while a more restricted and predominantly urban unitary authority (which only included Great Yarmouth borough and the north-east of Waveney district covering the town of Lowestoft and neighbouring areas) could potentially provide for a well-defined community of interest, it would pose even greater risk in terms of the capacity to address the challenges referred to above.

4.9 We recognise the synergies between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, the common challenges they face and the circumstances that led to the submission of the ‘Yartoft’ concept. As has been demonstrated to us, many of those challenges are now being addressed by local government and its partners, although it is accepted that much remains to be done. Nevertheless, from the evidence we have received and the discussions we have held with a range of stakeholders, it appears there is still a perception locally that the communities of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft have, in some way, been overlooked or let down.

4.10 It is significant that a number of agencies – such as Great Yarmouth & Waveney PCT, and 1st East – are taking a cross-boundary approach to addressing the challenges faced by the communities of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. We believe it is indicative of a community of interest that we would be unwise to ignore. While we are not persuaded that a unitary authority based solely on all or part of Great Yarmouth borough and Waveney district

36 would be viable, we see merit in linking the urban communities of those authorities.

4.11 This would enable common concerns and issues to be jointly addressed through the provision of effective strategic leadership and appropriate governance structures. Linking the urban areas could facilitate their effective representation in local, regional and national policy debates and development processes. The off shore energy and tourist industries that the two towns share may also help to provide a vision and focus for future economic leadership, development and investment.

4.12 Given the strong links between the areas and the potential for the area as a whole to be strengthened by uniting the towns, we are proposing that Great Yarmouth borough and the north-east part of Waveney district (the town of Lowestoft and the surrounding area) be included in, and form part of, a single unitary authority.

4.13 When considering the areas with which Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft should be linked, we note that Lowestoft appears to have stronger social and economic links to Norwich and Norfolk than Great Yarmouth does to any part of Suffolk (other than to Lowestoft). We note that residents in Lowestoft go to Norwich to do their shopping. We also note the travel to work patterns demonstrate that a significantly greater number of people travel from Waveney to Norfolk, than those going from Great Yarmouth to any part of Suffolk. We also note that this would unite most of the Broads area within one authority. As we have concluded that Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft should be linked through inclusion in the same unitary authority, we believe that for these reasons they should be linked to the north and included within a unitary authority in Norfolk.

4.14 In forming this view, we are conscious of the attachment which many people feel towards their existing county. We are not making any recommendation for change to the boundaries of the historic and ceremonial counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; such matters fall outside the remit of this review.

4.15 The part of Waveney district that we are currently proposing to include in the same unitary authority as part of Norfolk comprises the following areas: the Lowestoft unparished area; six parishes to the north of the town; and two parishes to the south of the town which both contain part of the Lowestoft urban area. The affected areas are shown in Table 6 below:

37 Table 6: Areas currently in Waveney district, included in our draft proposal for a Norfolk authority:

• Blundeston • Gisleham • Carlton Colville • Lound • Corton • Oulton • Flixton • Somerleyton, Ashby and • The unparished area of Lowestoft Herringfleet town

4.16 Map B1 in Appendix B illustrates where we are proposing Waveney district be divided.

4.17 We welcome further views at Stage Three from all interested parties, including local residents, on our proposal to unite the whole of Great Yarmouth borough and this part of Waveney district. We have identified several issues, set out below, on which we welcome views supported by appropriate evidence:

• the case for the inclusion of the Lowestoft area of Waveney district in any unitary authority with Great Yarmouth borough • the proposed boundary along which the Waveney district area is to be divided • the impact, taking into account our draft proposals below, of any proposed changes to our draft proposals for Great Yarmouth and Waveney on the remaining pattern of unitary authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk

38 5 Draft proposal for Norfolk

5.1 This chapter contains our draft proposal for Norfolk which includes the Lowestoft area of Suffolk, which we consider, on the basis of evidence received so far, appears most likely to achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s five criteria.

5.2 To address the questions we have been specifically asked by the Secretary of State, we consider that there could be a pattern of unitary local government for Norfolk (and only Norfolk). However, we believe that, for the reasons set out in the previous chapter, linking the Lowestoft area of Waveney with a unitary pattern of local government in Norfolk would best achieve the outcomes specified in the Secretary of State’s criteria.

5.3 Our draft proposal is a single Norfolk unitary authority comprising the area currently covered by Norfolk County as well as the Lowestoft area, as outlined in Table 6.

5.4 However, we also considered that there is some merit in other patterns of unitary local government for Norfolk and Lowestoft. These are set out later in this chapter. The merits of our draft proposal can be assessed against these other patterns.

5.5 We wish to emphasise that we have not finalised our proposal for Norfolk and the Lowestoft area and welcome views during Stage Three from all interested parties, including local residents before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State. Norfolk unitary authority

5.6 On the basis of the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s request for advice, and the evidence available to us during the first stages of the review, our draft proposal is for a Norfolk unitary authority. This proposal is subject to further consideration and evidence of its affordability and whether it will receive a broad cross-section of support.

5.7 The proposed Norfolk authority would also include the Lowestoft area of Waveney district in Suffolk, as set out in Table 7. A map illustrating our draft proposal can be found at Appendix B (Map B2).

Table 7: Draft proposal for Norfolk

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001)

Norfolk The county of Norfolk 868,428 and part of Waveney as set out in Table 6

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

39 5.8 We consider that this unitary authority would be likely to provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership to all of the Norfolk and Lowestoft area and that it would have the capacity to represent this area at regional and national levels.

5.9 By virtue of its historic identity and contemporary social and economic relationships, Norfolk may be said to constitute a set of linked communities of interest. We consider that an advantage of our draft proposal is that it unites the county without the imposition of what might appear to be artificial boundaries. We consider that this unitary authority would be in a strong position to reflect the interdependencies between rural and urban communities in different parts of the county and would have the capacity to secure a strong economic future for Norfolk and Lowestoft.

5.10 This capacity to reflect interdependencies particularly applies to the links between Norwich and its wider sphere of influence in the county. The evidence available to us suggests that the economic, social and cultural reach of the city extends far beyond its immediate borders, in some cases to the coast, the county boundary and beyond. As such, we consider that, on balance, the retention of Norwich in an authority with the remainder of Norfolk presents advantages in terms of strategic leadership and the effective delivery of services across the area. However, we note that this point is strongly contested by a number of stakeholders within the Norwich area, not least the City Council, and we are seeking further views on this matter.

5.11 Similarly, by placing both Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft within a county unitary authority we are proposing a single strategic body that would be able to focus on promoting the prosperity of these urban areas, with the capacity to tackle their shared concerns and challenges. However, we would welcome further evidence about how the possible inclusion of the Lowestoft area in a unitary Norfolk council could be accommodated in the leadership, governance and community engagement arrangements for a new council based on Norfolk and Lowestoft.

5.12 We note that the County Council’s concept for a county unitary authority envisaged the establishment of five planning, licensing and scrutiny areas, represented at cabinet level by an Area Member elected by unitary councillors within that area. Area Members would be accountable both to those councillors and to Community Partnership Boards.

5.13 The County Council’s concept considered that in the first two years of the new unitary authority consultation would be undertaken with a view to establishing at least 21 Community Partnership Boards outside Norwich, based on one or two market towns and their surrounding rural area, with a number of clusters of boards within Norwich. These boards would have devolved budgets and a place-shaping role resting on the planning and scrutiny of local services. Boards would be composed of unitary authority councillors as well as representatives from parish and town councils, other statutory bodies and the voluntary sector. Unitary councillors would be supported in their community leadership role through officer support and the provision of individual budgets.

40 5.14 The County Council outlined potential areas for each of the Community Partnership Boards to represent the areas outside Norwich. We note that under our draft proposal consideration must be given to how Lowestoft would be represented by a Community Partnership Board.

Table 8: Areas to be represented by Community Partnership Boards outside Norwich.

Acle, & Dereham Holt, Sheringham North Walsham & Diss & Harleston & Wells Stalham Attleborough Downham Hunstanton Stratton Market King’s Lynn Swaffham, Caister Fakenham Loddon Thetford & Watton Cromer Gorleston Lynn Rural Wymondham Great Yarmouth

5.15 The County Council’s concept considered that these boards would scrutinise public services and be directly accountable for a delegated budget. The concept suggested that such budgets would be spent according to the local priorities – for example on local groups or projects, or children’s play areas. The delegated budget would be directly related to the unitary authority’s scrutiny arrangements, through the production of an annual report which would, among other things, detail the Community Partnership Boards’ decisions and spending for the year. This report would be published locally. We see considerable merit in these arrangements and would welcome further views on them during this stage of the review.

5.16 One of these five areas to be represented at cabinet level would encompass the Norwich urban area and its periphery (including parts of the current Broadland and South Norfolk districts). This area, under the County Council’s vision, would be allocated additional resources and responsibilities for economic development, planning and infrastructure through a proposed Norwich Development Board. We understand the approach taken by the County Council in seeking to reflect the economic importance and civic identity of Norwich through the provision of ambitious devolved governance arrangements. Nonetheless, we invite further evidence about how the aspirations of Norwich might be met under these arrangements.

5.17 Similarly, we will want to be assured that, under a county unitary authority, there will be comparable concern with addressing the common socio-economic challenges facing the two coastal towns of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. We are also keen to ensure that effective strategic leadership is provided for King’s Lynn and the west of the county. Both might necessitate greater devolution than the model currently envisaged by the County Council.

5.18 We note that the County Council has proposed that a county unitary authority would be governed by a leader and cabinet executive, where the leader would remain in office for a four-year term. On the basis of the evidence currently available to us, we consider that this should ensure a sufficiently strong, stable mandate for governance in Norfolk.

41 5.19 One of the most important challenges facing the proposed county unitary authority would be to demonstrate that it would not be too large to deliver the empowerment of citizens and communities. A Norfolk unitary authority (including the Lowestoft area of Suffolk) would have one of the largest populations in England (nearly 870,000 based on 2001 population figures), it would cover a large geographical area (approximately 544,000 hectares) and represent a wide range of rural and urban areas which differ considerably in their socio-economic composition.

5.20 The County Council suggested that a county-wide unitary authority would secure further community empowerment through the devolution of powers to parish and town councils where appropriate. It indicated that resources would be provided to enable them to fulfil this role more effectively. The creation of town councils in currently unparished urban areas such as Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn was also envisaged.

5.21 Its concept noted that the community partnership boards should work to strengthen the existing town and parish councils. However, we invite further details of how parish and town councils will work with and within these boards. In particular, we wish to be satisfied that a good working relationship between parish and town councils and Community Partnership Boards, with a minimum of duplication of effort, would be facilitated under these arrangements. We would be interested in views on how Quality Parish Councils might be included within these structures.

5.22 We consider that the community and area governance model set out by the County Council in its concept could address the concerns expressed in relation to the size and diversity of the proposed authority. Its proposals for devolved budgets and service delivery also go some way to addressing how local services could be delivered in so large an authority with local input. However, we will be seeking comment from interested parties on this model, including how Lowestoft might be incorporated within it.

5.23 The proposed county-wide unitary authority would also in our view have the capacity to meet the value-for-money and equity of public service criteria. We are confident that a Norfolk unitary authority would provide economies of scale and scope, extended by the transfer of functions of the seven districts.

5.24 The fact that under the draft proposal Norfolk County Council services would not be subject to disaggregation reduces the risk of service delivery being adversely affected by the transition to unitary status. As previously mentioned, county council services account for some 80% of local government expenditure in the county. We recognise that there will be the need for an aggregation of district council services, including those currently delivered by Waveney as well as a disaggregation of Suffolk County Council services in the Lowestoft area. This may have a transitional impact on service delivery but over a longer time-frame there should be opportunities for economies of scale and for developing consistent service standards.

5.25 We acknowledge that the County Council’s present performance and capacity to deliver effective services can only provide a broad indicator of the

42 future performance of a county-wide unitary authority. However, we note that it already carries out many of the large-scale local authority functions and received a three-star rating from the Audit Commission in its Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). It was also praised by the Commission for providing effective leadership with partners for a number of economic development projects, such as East Port in Great Yarmouth and the Nar-Ouse regeneration in King’s Lynn.

5.26 We consider that a Norfolk unitary authority could benefit from the current network of partners of the County Council, via the Norfolk Strategic Partnership and Local Area Agreement (LAA) framework. There would, however, be a need to extend the county-wide network to encompass partners in the Lowestoft area.

5.27 We are satisfied that our draft proposal has the capacity to integrate county and district services into a coherent whole and tackle the challenges of urban and rural deprivation and educational under-attainment. This is particularly important in light of the need for a sustained focus on deprivation in Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Norwich and the other urban areas of the county such as King’s Lynn and Thetford. Issues

5.28 The County Council proposed a council size of 120 for the county unitary authority. This is a large number of councillors for any local authority. If a new unitary authority (or authorities) was to be established by the Secretary of State following our advice to her, the Electoral Commission is obliged by law to consider the need for an electoral review of the new authority. If it considers that such a review is necessary, as it has done for the new unitary authorities established by Parliament in 2008, it would direct us to conduct an electoral review. We would start by determining the appropriate council size.

5.29 In that event, we would seek further evidence as to why a given number of councillors would be required for the administration of the council and the representation of the electorate. However, we would urge all respondents to give serious consideration to how any model of governance employed by the new authorities might be reflected in the number of councillors on the whole council.

5.30 We have identified several issues, set out below, on which we welcome views supported by evidence:

• how the County Council’s proposed Community Partnership Boards will be constituted in order to ensure clear accountability • further information on the area governance model envisaged for the city of Norwich as well the other urban centres of King’s Lynn, Thetford, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft • the roles and responsibilities of the proposed Community Partnership Boards, particularly as they are perceived by parish and town councils and other groups likely to be involved as Board representatives

43 • the relationship between the Community Partnership Boards and parish and town councils

5.31 In light of further evidence received, we may decide that our draft proposal should be refined or otherwise varied, and we may change the proposal before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State. Other patterns

5.32 We consider that our draft proposal is likely to have the capacity to achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s criteria. Nevertheless, we believe there is merit in two other patterns which are set out below. Map B3 and Map B4 illustrating these two patterns can be found at Appendix B. Interested parties may wish to bear these patterns in mind when commenting on our draft proposal.

Two unitary authority pattern A

5.33 We believe there is merit in a pattern of two unitary authorities as set out in Table 9: a Norwich, Great Yarmouth & Lowestoft authority uniting these three urban areas; and a Norfolk authority comprising the remainder of Norfolk county. Map B3 in Appendix B of this report illustrates this pattern.

5.34 Detailed maps of this pattern are also available for viewing from the Committee’s website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk, at local information points and libraries.

Table 9: Two unitary authority pattern A

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001)

Norfolk Breckland, King’s Lynn 469,566 & West Norfolk and parts of Broadland, North Norfolk and South Norfolk

Norwich, Great Yarmouth Great Yarmouth, 398,862 & Lowestoft Norwich and parts of Broadland, North Norfolk, South Norfolk and Waveney (as set out in Table 6)

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

5.35 Having identified that Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft should be linked together in the same authority we consider there is merit in them being included in a smaller authority which will have the capacity to focus on these areas. For example, we consider that the low levels of educational attainment

44 areas. For example, we consider that the low levels of educational attainment and poor levels of health can be addressed in a smaller authority. We also consider that the off-shore industries may benefit from an authority that unites the coastal towns with Norwich. We consider that Norwich has the capacity and influence to enable this area to develop as a stronger economic driver for the region.

5.36 We consider that association with the economic dynamism of Norwich city could yield substantial benefits for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, while reducing the risk that the capacity of the authority to provide strategic leadership and value-for-money services would be undermined (as we consider is likely under proposals for a single unitary authority based on Great Yarmouth and Waveney).

5.37 We have received some evidence, albeit contested, of social and economic (as well as transport) connections between Norwich and the coastal area. All three towns have a common interest in overcoming problems of urban deprivation. An interdependency in major economic projects between the city and the coast has also been suggested; it has been argued, for example, that the development of the Outer Harbour in Great Yarmouth would also be of benefit to the Norwich economy.

5.38 The remainder of Norfolk county would form a unitary authority with a more pronounced rural character. The largest town would be King’s Lynn. We note that we received a concept for an authority based on West Norfolk which we consider has some potential to further develop this pattern. We consider that a revised version of the area and neighbourhood governance structures proposed by the County Council may have the capacity to provide local and accountable leadership in the Norfolk authority.

5.39 Having identified the potential benefits of this pattern of authorities, on balance we are not currently persuaded that it would provide greater benefits than our draft proposal. We note that the County Council considered uniting Norwich and Great Yarmouth in its submission of concepts to us. However, we are not persuaded that there is a clear vision with clear intended benefits for either of the two authorities. In particular, at this stage, it is not clear to us how King’s Lynn’s sphere of influence would be accommodated in the strategic leadership and vision for the rural Norfolk authority.

5.40 We acknowledge that the present financial management regimes of the existing district councils can only provide a broad indicator of the future performance of a Norwich, Great Yarmouth & Lowestoft unitary authority. However, we note that the Audit Commission issued qualified (disclaimer) audit opinions in respect of the financial year 2006/07 for both Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Norwich City Council, and has also expressed a number of concerns relating to financial management at each authority

5.41 This two unitary pattern presents a number of challenges and at this stage we are not persuaded that there is sufficient likelihood that this would better meet the Secretary of State’s five criteria than our draft proposal.

45 Boundaries of two unitary authority pattern A

5.42 The boundaries which we have considered for this pattern of unitary authorities are indicative only.

5.43 The Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft authority would include all of the existing city of Norwich, the whole of Great Yarmouth borough, and parts of Broadland, North Norfolk and South Norfolk districts as stated below. It would also include the same part of Waveney district around Lowestoft as included in our draft proposal (as set out in Table 6 of this report).

Areas to be included in the Norwich, Great Yarmouth & Lowestoft unitary authority:

• All of Great Yarmouth borough • Part of Waveney (the Lowestoft area outlined in Table 6) • All of Norwich city

Parishes within Broadland • • • • • Beighton • • • Reedham • Brundall • • Cantley • • Drayton • • • • Great & Little Plumstead • • • • • • • • • • Horsham St Faith & Newton St • Wroxham Faith • and Burlingham

Parishes within North Norfolk • Horning • Ludham • Hoveton • Potter Heigham

Parishes within South Norfolk • Bawburgh • Cringleford • Bixley • Keswick • Caistor St Edmund • Kirby Bedon • Colney • Trowse with Newton • Costessey

46 5.44 To the south and west of Norwich the A47 ring road is a well-defined boundary, which bisects the parishes in South Norfolk listed above. It is possible that using the A47 as a boundary would better reflect community identities in this area and reduce the risk of duplication in locally based service provision. However, we recognise that dividing parishes runs counter to our desire to use whole parishes as the ‘building blocks’ of any new authority. We have included all the parishes in the proposed Norwich authority that include all or part of the A47 but would particularly welcome views and evidence on this issue. If the A47 were to be used as the boundary of a Norwich authority it would not necessarily result in the affected parishes being split between principal authorities. The Secretary of State also has the option of changing the boundaries of a parish when implementing any of our proposals.

5.45 The remainder of Norfolk would form a unitary Norfolk authority.

Two unitary authority pattern B

5.46 We also considered merits in a further pattern of two unitary authorities as set out in Table 10: a Norwich authority on expanded boundaries; and a Norfolk authority comprising the remainder of the county and Lowestoft. Map B4 in Appendix B of this report illustrates this pattern.

5.47 Detailed maps of this option will be available for viewing from the Committee’s website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk, at local information points and libraries.

Table 10: Two unitary authority pattern B

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001)

Norfolk Breckland, Great 658,670 Yarmouth, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, North Norfolk and parts of Broadland, South Norfolk and Waveney

Norwich Norwich and parts of 209,758 Broadland and South Norfolk

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

5.48 We have received evidence to suggest that Norwich city would benefit in social and economic terms from a unitary authority on expanded boundaries. This model provides a pattern of unitary authorities which recognises this case, and to which the City Council’s concept for a unitary city authority could be applied.

47 5.49 The remainder of Norfolk county, together with the Lowestoft area of Waveney district, would form a Norfolk unitary authority with a more pronounced rural character due to the exclusion of Norwich. The largest towns would be Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and Lowestoft. We note that the County Council outlined a concept which included this pattern of authorities, less Lowestoft, and we consider that the arrangements it has outlined may have the capacity to achieve the outcomes specified in the Secretary of State’s criteria.

5.50 However, this two unitary model presents a number of challenges and at this stage we are not persuaded that there is sufficient likelihood that it will better meet the five criteria than our draft proposal.

5.51 We are seeking to identify a unitary pattern that best meets the criteria across the entire area under review, not merely within the Norwich urban area. We are not persuaded that there is a vision for this Norfolk authority which would also contain Lowestoft. In particular we consider that Norwich provides a strong economic focus for the whole county and we are not persuaded that a predominantly rural Norfolk authority that included Lowestoft would be as effective without the city.

5.52 In addition, and as noted previously, while we acknowledge that the City Council’s present financial management regime can only provide a broad indicator of the future performance of a city unitary authority on expanded boundaries. We note that in March 2008 the Audit Commission issued a qualified (disclaimer) audit opinion on the City Council's 2006/07 accounts, although it acknowledged the steps that were being taken to address the underlying financial management problems.

Boundaries of two unitary authority pattern B

5.53 The boundaries which we have considered for this pattern of unitary authorities are indicative only.

5.54 A Norwich authority would include all of Norwich city and parts of Broadland and South Norfolk districts as stated below. It would also include the same part of Waveney district around Lowestoft as included in our draft proposal (as set out in Table 6 of this report).

48 Areas to be included in the Norwich unitary authority:

• All of Norwich city

Parishes within Broadland • Beeston St Andrew • Postwick with Witton • Drayton • Rackheath • Great & Little Plumstead • Spixworth • Hellesdon • Sprowston • Horsford • Taverham • Horsham St Faith & Newton St • Thorpe St Andrew Faith • Old Catton

Parishes within South Norfolk • Bawburgh • Cringleford • Bixley • Keswick • Caistor St Edmund • Kirby Bedon • Colney • Trowse with Newton • Costessey

5.55 Again, we have noted that to the south and west of Norwich the A47 ring road is a well-defined boundary, which bisects the parishes in South Norfolk listed above. It is possible that using the A47 as a boundary would better reflect community identities in this area and reduce the risk of duplication in locally based service provision. However, we recognise that dividing parishes runs counter to our desire to use whole parishes as the ‘building blocks’ of any new authority. We would therefore particularly welcome views and evidence on this issue.

5.56 The remaining parts of Norfolk and that area of Waveney outlined in Table 6 would form the Norfolk authority.

49 50 6 Draft proposal for Suffolk

6.1 This chapter contains our draft proposal for Suffolk which is for two unitary authorities. This does not include the Lowestoft area, which we are proposing be included in a Norfolk authority and is discussed in chapters 4 and 5 of this report.

6.2 We consider our draft proposal, on the basis of evidence received so far, appears most likely to achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s five criteria. On the basis of the evidence received so far we consider that there could be a pattern of unitary local government for Suffolk (and only Suffolk). However, for the reasons set out in Chapter 4 we do not consider that linking all or part of Great Yarmouth with a unitary pattern of local government in Suffolk, could achieve the outcomes specified in the Secretary of State’s criteria.

6.3 Our draft proposal is an Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority and a Suffolk unitary authority comprising the area currently covered by Suffolk county, less the area around Lowestoft, as set out in Table 6.

6.4 However, we also considered that there is some merit in a single unitary pattern of unitary local government for Suffolk. This is set out later in this chapter. The merits of our draft proposal can be assessed against this single unitary pattern.

6.5 We wish to emphasise that we have not finalised our proposal for Suffolk and welcome views during Stage Three from all interested parties, including local residents before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State. Two unitary authorities: Ipswich & Felixstowe and Suffolk

6.6 On the basis of the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s request for advice, and the evidence available to us during the first stages of the review, our draft proposal is for two unitary authorities: an Ipswich & Felixstowe authority and a Suffolk authority. This is subject to consideration of their affordability and whether they will receive a broad cross-section of support. Table 11 below sets out the constituent parts of each of the authorities.

6.7 Map B5 in Appendix B illustrates our draft proposal. Detailed maps are also available for viewing on the Committee’s website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk, at local information points and libraries. Please see Appendix B for further information.

51 Table 11: Draft proposal for Suffolk

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001)

Ipswich and Felixstowe Ipswich, part of Suffolk 205,003 Coastal, part of Babergh and part of Mid Suffolk

Suffolk Forest Heath, St 391,850 Edmundsbury, part of Babergh, part of Mid Suffolk, part of Suffolk Coastal and part Waveney

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority

6.8 We have put forward as part of our draft proposal a unitary authority based on Ipswich and the surrounding area, but which also incorporates an adjoining estuarine rural area, broadly the Felixstowe and Shotley peninsulas.

6.9 We have received evidence to suggest that Ipswich would benefit from becoming a unitary authority on expanded boundaries, providing a more holistic and sustainable approach to planning and managing social, economic and environmental growth within that part of the Haven Gateway area. Conversely, we have received representations outlining that Ipswich is vital to the economic development of the county, attracting external investment and serving as a focus for financial and retail industries.

6.10 Having given careful consideration to all the evidence available, we are not at this point persuaded that there is evidence to suggest that Ipswich is fundamental to the economic development of Suffolk as a whole. Despite the acknowledged interdependence between town and country, we do not consider that Ipswich acts as the same economic driver for the rest of the county as is the case with some other county towns (e.g. Norwich in Norfolk). We are therefore not at this stage persuaded that the creation of an Ipswich unitary authority would detrimentally affect the economic development of either Ipswich or the remainder of Suffolk.

6.11 At the same time, however, we acknowledge the economic importance of Ipswich to the surrounding area, in particular the nearby port town of Felixstowe. These two towns are united in the Haven Gateway sub-region, which is of national and regional importance, providing a strategic transport gateway for trade and tourism between the UK and Europe.8 We consider that the planned future growth within this sub-region will benefit by having an

8 East of England Plan: The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England, www.eera.gov.uk

52 authority uniting two of the principal towns of the sub-region. The sub-region also has expanding tourism and marine leisure industries which are increasingly broadening from ‘traditional coastal resorts to include environmental, historical, cultural and recreational assets’.9

6.12 We are led to believe that the Haven Gateway sub-region, which also comprises a number of other ports in north-east Essex, has substantial potential to develop further as a major focus for economic development and growth. This is recognised in its identification by the Government as a growth point. Plans for the Haven Gateway include the development of four strategic employment sites located between Ipswich and Felixstowe. We consider that there would be synergies between the economic objectives of the Haven Gateway Partnership and those of an Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority.

6.13 Evidence received from the County Council and Ipswich Borough Council also highlighted linkages between the economies of these two towns. For example, Ipswich is the preferred local location for shipping company headquarters; there is considerable commuting between the two towns and, we are told, Felixstowe plays an important coastal leisure destination for the people of Ipswich.

6.14 Accordingly, we have drawn the boundaries of the proposed Ipswich & Felixstowe unitary authority to incorporate their shared economic influence. This would not only include the Ipswich urban area and the Felixstowe peninsula but extend further to include the wider travel-to-work zone to the south, to the boundary with Essex county. We also note planning developments taking place within the Shotley peninsular, which we believe will have a stronger focus on Ipswich than with the remaining Suffolk area. We have included the area between the River Orwell and the A12 in our Ipswich and Felixstowe authority. We considered that this area’s inclusion is necessary to provide for effective service delivery. Retaining the area within a Suffolk authority would mean service delivery may only be achieved from or through the Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority. We note from Ipswich Borough Council’s concept that a unitary authority including Felixstowe would seek to protect the green belt in the interests of the sub-region.

6.15 With a clear vision, centred on this northern part of the Haven Gateway, we consider that this authority would be likely to have the capacity to provide strong and effective strategic leadership across this part of Suffolk. Similarly, we are confident that a unitary authority of this size and expected focus would be well positioned to exert influence and leverage at regional, national and European levels. We envisage the new authority creating new opportunities for working with other formal and informal partners, ranging from the local communities to trans-national partners and other ports within and beyond the Haven Gateway area.

9 A Shared Vision: The Regional Economic Strategy for the East of England, www.eera.gov.uk

53 6.16 We also consider that such a unitary authority would be likely to have the commitment and capacity to work effectively with public, private and voluntary sector partners. However, we note that, initially at least, its boundaries would not necessarily be coterminous with those of partner organisations.

6.17 We note that Ipswich Borough Council has proposed that any unitary authority for the town should be governed by a leader and cabinet executive model of governance where the leader would remain in office for a four-year term. On the basis of the evidence currently available to us, we consider that this should ensure a sufficiently strong, stable mandate for governance in an Ipswich and Felixstowe authority.

6.18 However, it will be important for the proposed unitary authority to provide effective neighbourhood empowerment to a range of rural and urban areas, including both the parished and unparished areas. We note that the Borough Council’s concept for an enlarged Ipswich unitary authority envisaged the establishment of a number of neighbourhood or settlement-based Area Committees. The Borough Council considered that these Area Committees would use devolved powers to make decisions about service delivery within a set budget. We consider that if suitably resourced and constituted, these Committees may enable unitary councillors to work with local residents and partners, including parish and town councils, to take decisions on local services and carry out planning and scrutiny exercises. Ipswich Borough Council also envisaged a four overview and scrutiny committee with representatives from the voluntary and community sector co-opted to them.

6.19 We consider that the area and neighbourhood governance model set out by the Borough Council in its concept could provide suitable mechanisms for accountability and community involvement. However, we wish for further details on how this arrangement might work, including the geographic areas the Committees will represent. We will be particularly interested in exploring how these arrangements might be adapted to the needs of rural areas, the roles of parish and town councils and the separate civic identity and aspirations of Felixstowe.

6.20 We consider that an Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority would be likely to have the capacity and economies of scale to achieve value-for-money in the provision of local government services. We are satisfied that the Borough Council has given sufficient consideration in general terms to how a new unitary authority would integrate county and district services into a coherent whole. However, we recognise that there will be the need for an aggregation of district council services as well as a disaggregation of Suffolk County Council services in the Ipswich & Felixstowe area. This is discussed in further detail in the following section.

54 Suffolk unitary authority

6.21 The remainder of the county, less Lowestoft, would form a large, predominantly rural Suffolk unitary authority extending from Newmarket in the west to the eastern coast. The largest town would be Bury St Edmunds. The proposed Suffolk authority would have reasonable internal road communications along the A12, A14 and A131, as well as a number of east/west B roads.

6.22 We consider that the proposed unitary authority would provide a focus for the majority of the county which would reflect the historic identity of Suffolk and its contemporary social and economic relationships. At this stage we believe that the exclusion of Ipswich, Felixstowe and Lowestoft, would not adversely affect this focus. Rather, we envisage that the focus of this new authority would centre around its historic market towns and rural hinterlands.

6.23 We consider that the exclusion of Ipswich and Felixstowe is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the economy of the remainder of the county, which is primarily rural in nature. As part of a growth point area, an Ipswich and Felixstowe authority would continue to attract inward investment to the area, with commensurate benefits as a source for employment extending well beyond its proposed boundaries.

6.24 Unlike a number of locally-generated concepts seeking to restore the pre-1974 distinction between East and West Suffolk, our proposed Suffolk authority would not divide the central rural area of the county through the imposition of what might be perceived as an artificial boundary. Instead, such a unitary authority would be well placed to reflect the common interests of rural and market town communities across the majority of the county area.

6.25 We consider the proposed Suffolk authority would be likely to provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership to the majority of the county area. It would be able to take forward the role of the existing County Council in its current network of partnerships at county, regional and national level. We note that the proposed Suffolk authority would also be able to build on current achievement in this area; for example, the Audit Commission has noted in its assessment of current County Council performance that ‘partnership working is delivering some important cross-cutting outcomes’. However, we acknowledge that its boundaries would not necessarily be coterminous with those of important partners such as the police and the Primary Care Trust, at least initially. This may require careful management during the transition period.

6.26 One of the most important challenges facing the proposed county unitary authority would be to demonstrate that it was not too large to deliver empowerment to citizens and communities. We note that our proposed Suffolk unitary authority would cover a large geographical area. It would contain a variety of different communities with a total population of some 400,000 facing different challenges and having different opportunities for development.

55 6.27 We consider that some of the detail provided by both the One Suffolk concept and the County Council Liberal Democrats’ Option B (the Liberal Democrats) could be applied to our draft proposal. Both, for example, proposed a leader and cabinet executive where the leader would remain in office for a four-year term. We consider that on the basis of the evidence currently available to us we consider that this should ensure a sufficiently strong and stable mandate for governance in our proposed Suffolk unitary authority.

6.28 We consider that the community governance model set out in the ‘One Suffolk’ concept, including the proposed use of Community Boards based on market towns and the surrounding parishes, could be effective. We welcome the views of town and parish councils on these community boards, particularly in relation to agreeing area charters and the role of town and parish councils within them. According to this concept, the Community Boards across Suffolk would have a wide range of powers, bringing together citizens, unitary councillors, police, doctors, headteachers with a devolved budget in order to address the specific challenges that localities face.

6.29 The ‘One Suffolk’ concept also considered that the largest towns in the existing county (Bury St Edmunds, Ipswich and Lowestoft) should have Public Service Villages (PSVs), which would aim to provide shared local offices for public sector providers. We see value in differentiating the bigger towns from the smaller market towns; however, due to the omission of Ipswich and Lowestoft from our proposed Suffolk unitary authority, we would welcome views as to whether this model of community governance remains appropriate for the remaining Suffolk area.

6.30 We have also noted that the Liberal Democrats proposed Area Committees as a method of ensuring neighbourhood empowerment for the unitary authority it outlined. The number of Area Committees would vary for each authority: ten for the proposed Suffolk unitary and five in the ‘North Haven’ unitary authority (which incorporates Ipswich & Felixstowe). It proposed that a unitary councillor from that area would chair the Area Committee and that each parish council within that area would also be represented. Area committees would also include partners such as the police and they would meet quarterly to provide strategic leadership on traffic and planning issues as well as providing a scrutiny function to services being delivered in the area.

6.31 We consider that while both these neighbourhood governance arrangements have some merit, further information is required to demonstrate what will work most effectively for the Suffolk authority and Ipswich and Felixstowe authority we are proposing. In particular, we note that while the ‘One Suffolk’ concept provides some detail on how 25 community boards would work for an authority based on the existing county, we welcome further views on how this model would be adapted for the Suffolk authority we have outlined.

6.32 We consider that the proposed Suffolk authority should be likely to have sufficient capacity to provide an effective range of unitary local government

56 services that meets the needs of the people, which are currently delivered by district and borough councils.

6.33 We acknowledge that the County Council’s present performance and capacity to deliver effective services can only provide a very broad indicator of the future performance of our proposed Suffolk authority, which omits two significant areas of the county. While we note that the Audit Commission rated Suffolk as a four-star council in 2007 and as ‘improving well’, we welcome comments on the likely impact on the removal of three significant towns (Felixstowe, Ipswich and Lowestoft) from the current county area and the consequent impact on service delivery and economies of scale in the new unitary county area.

6.34 We recognise that there will be a need for an aggregation of district council services excluding those currently delivered in Ipswich and Felixstowe. This may have a transitional impact on service delivery but over a longer time- frame there should be opportunities for economies of scale and for developing consistent service standards. We consider it is likely that a Suffolk authority would have the capacity to adapt to provide the necessary capacity and resources in order to address the social and economic challenges of Suffolk. Issues

6.35 If new unitary authorities were to be established by the Secretary of State following our advice to her, the Electoral Commission is obliged by law to consider the need for an electoral review of the new authority. If it considers that such a review is necessary, as it has done for the new unitary authorities established by Parliament in 2008, it would direct us to conduct an electoral review. We would start by determining council size.

6.36 In that event, we would seek further evidence as to why a given number of councillors would be required for the administration of the council and the representation of the electorate. However we would urge all respondents to give serious consideration to how any model of governance employed by the new authorities might be reflected in the number of councillors on the whole council.

6.37 We have identified several issues in relation to the Ipswich and Felixstowe and Suffolk unitary authorities, set out below, on which we welcome views supported by evidence:

• we note we received support for a leader and cabinet executive model in support of a number of concepts. We would welcome further views on how this political management structure would work in both of our proposed authorities. • we welcome views on whether the Community Boards outlined within the ’One Suffolk’ concept would provide the best structure of local governance, given the removal of Lowestoft, Ipswich and Felixstowe, or whether some alternative method of devolved decision making would be more appropriate.

57 • we welcome information on the impact on economies of scale arising from the loss of Ipswich, Lowestoft and Felixstowe but taking into account the aggregation of district council services within the new unitary Suffolk authority. • we also welcome views on the provision of services in a county-wide unitary authority which is of a significant geographical size and which is sparsely populated. For example, could the Public Service Villages outlined in the ‘One Suffolk’ concept be used in different locations or would an alternative service delivery method be more appropriate given the more rural focus of the county? • further information is also sought more generally on what arrangements would be put in place to ensure that communities, including parish and town councils, are able to influence the delivery of services and how the authority would devolve decision-making. • we would also welcome further evidence about how the possible exclusion of the Ipswich, Felixstowe and Lowestoft areas from the ’One Suffolk’ concept could adversely affect the economic development of Suffolk and the ability of the Suffolk authority to provide strategic leadership. • we are also seeking views on how two large towns (Ipswich and Felixstowe) would work effectively together, ensuring local representation for both areas and the existing parishes. We welcome the views of parish and town councils on their envisaged role in both these authorities.

Boundaries of our draft proposal for the Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority and the Suffolk unitary authority

6.38 The boundaries which we have proposed for the unitary authorities under our draft proposal are primarily indicative and we welcome further views on them.

6.39 The boundary of the proposed Ipswich and Felixstowe authority is based on the following considerations:

• all of the Ipswich urban area, and areas allocated for development in the future around Ipswich and Felixstowe would be contained in a single unitary authority • parishes adjoining the Ipswich built-up area would also be included, reflecting the Ipswich policy area and incorporating facilities and transport infrastructure that serve the town • that those parishes to the east and north of Ipswich (up to but not including Woodbridge) which include sections of the A12, should be included in the Ipswich and Felixstowe authority • that the whole of the rural Shotley peninsula be included, so that all parishes to the east of the A12 are included in this area are united in one proposal. • that the whole of the Felixstowe peninsula be included in order to prevent the parishes from being geographically isolated from the proposed Suffolk unitary authority.

58

6.40 The proposed Ipswich & Felixstowe authority would include all of Ipswich Borough and the following parishes from the existing Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal councils, as outlined below.

Areas to be included in the Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority

• All of Ipswich Borough

Parishes within Babergh • Arwarton • Holbrook • Belstead • Pinewood • Bentley • Shotley • Brantham • Sproughton • Capel St Mary • Stratford St Mary • Chelmondiston • Stutton • Copdock & Washbrook • Tattingstone • East Bergholt • Wherstead • Freston • Woolverstone • Harkstead

Parishes within Mid Suffolk • Akenham • Great Blakenham • Barham • Little Blakenham • Bramford • Whitton • Claydon

Parishes within Suffolk Coastal • Brightwell • Martlesham • Bucklesham • Nacton • Falkenham • Newbourne • Felixstowe • Playford • Foxhall • Purdis Farm • Great Bealings • Rushmere St Andrew • Hemley • Stratton Hall • Kesgrave • Trimley St Martin • Kirton • Trimley St Mary • Levington • Waldringfield • Little Bealings

6.41 The proposed Suffolk authority would include the rest of Suffolk, less that part of Waveney included within a Norfolk-based authority which is listed in Table 6.

6.42 In light of further evidence received, we may decide that our draft proposal should be refined or otherwise varied, and we may change the proposal before we submit our final advice to the Secretary of State.

59 Other pattern

6.43 We consider that our draft proposal is likely to have the capacity to achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s criteria. Nevertheless, we believe there is merit in a single unitary authority which is set out below. Map B6 illustrating this pattern can be found in Appendix B. Interested parties may wish to bear this pattern in mind when commenting on our draft proposal.

Single unitary authority

6.44 We believe there is merit in a unitary authority comprising the whole of the existing Suffolk county, with the exception of the Lowestoft area.

Table 12: Single unitary authority for Suffolk

Unitary authority Constituent parts Population (2001) Suffolk Forest Heath, St 596,853 Edmundsbury, Suffolk Coastal, Babergh, Mid Suffolk, Ipswich and part of Waveney (less that part of Waveney as set out in Table 6)

Source: Office for National Statistics (2001 census)

6.45 We note that the existing county provides not only for a historic identity but constitutes a set of linked communities of interest. This model therefore provides for the existing area of Suffolk, (with the exception of Lowestoft and parishes listed in Table 6), to form a single unitary authority.

6.46 As discussed earlier in this report, we consider that Lowestoft should be included with Great Yarmouth in our draft proposal for a Norfolk unitary authority. We also considered that Lowestoft could be included with some part of Norfolk in the other patterns for Norfolk that we have identified as having merit. Accordingly, we have not sought to include Lowestoft in this pattern for Suffolk.

6.47 Much of the ‘One Suffolk’ model could be applied under this alternative option. On the basis of the available evidence, we consider that a county unitary authority could provide the necessary capacity, resources and strategic leadership to address the social and economic challenges facing the area it would represent.

6.48 We consider that the neighbourhood empowerment criterion could be met through the ’One Suffolk’ community governance model. Its proposed community boards and Public Service Villages could be effective in engaging people to influence decisions including shaping service provision in this authority. As a large authority we believe it would also have sufficient capacity

60 to provide an effective range of local government services that meets the needs of the people, which are currently delivered by district and borough councils. We further note that there would only be a limited need to disaggregate county council services in the Lowestoft area.

6.49 However, we consider that this county unitary authority presents a number of challenges, and at this stage we are not persuaded that there is sufficient likelihood that such an authority is likely to better achieve the outcomes set out in the Secretary of State’s five criteria than our draft proposal outlined above.

6.50 In particular, we consider that the aspirations of Ipswich may not best be met under this model. We are not persuaded that the evidence available at this time demonstrates that the inclusion of the Ipswich area is essential to the successful governance of the remainder of the county. We do not consider that Ipswich is necessarily a primary focus for much of the rest of Suffolk, shaping the economy and identity of the county, in the same way that Norwich acts as a focus for Norfolk. Although a significant economic driver in the south east of the county and a major source of employment, travel to work patterns indicate that its attraction as a centre for employment is reasonably limited beyond the residents of Suffolk Coastal district. This is unsurprising given the town’s excellent commuter links to London and the rural nature of the remainder of the county, with its focus on the network of market towns.

6.51 We are concerned that in the interests of the development of Ipswich it should be contained within a separate unitary authority in which its focus as a sub-regional economic driver is suitably provided for. This is particularly important given the challenge any pattern of unitary authority would face in providing leadership for the various urban and rural communities within the county area.

Boundaries of a single unitary authority pattern

6.52 This Suffolk authority would include the existing county of Suffolk, less that part of Waveney included with a Norfolk-based authority as listed in Table 6.

61 62 7 What happens next?

7.1 There will now be a period of 12 weeks, during which we welcome views on our draft proposals. All representations should be sent to reach us by 26 September 2008.

7.2 We have not finalised our proposals for unitary patterns of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk. In the light of representations received, we will review our draft proposals and consider whether they should be altered. It is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft proposals..

7.3 We welcome views and evidence from all those who have previously written to us and those we have not yet heard from.

7.4 The Committee places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way we deal with all representations. Accordingly, representations received will be made available for public inspection at our offices in Trevelyan House. Submissions will also be available on our website, www.boundarycommittee.org.uk

7.5 If you make comments during this period of the review, and do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary, but all information in responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law.

7.6 After 26 September 2008 we will consider all the representations we have received and start to formulate our final advice, which we have been asked to submit to the Secretary of State by 31 December 2008.

7.7 You can express your views by using our online form at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk or by directly writing to:

Review Manager (Norfolk/Suffolk Review) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Tel: 020 7271 0512 Fax: 020 7271 0505 Email: [email protected]

7.8 Once we have provided our advice there will then be a further period of four weeks during which representations may be made directly to the Secretary of State. She may then accept, reject or modify any proposal that we make. She may also ask us for more information. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide if and when any new unitary authorities are to be created.

63

64 Appendix A: Other considerations Equal opportunities

In preparing this report we have had regard to the general duty set out in section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful racial discrimination • promote equality of opportunity • promote good relations between people of different racial groups

National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Broads

We have also had regard to:

• Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as inserted by section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the Park’s purposes. If there is a conflict between those purposes, a relevant authority shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.

• Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of the AONB.

• Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (as inserted by section 97 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of the Broads.

65 66 Appendix B: Mapping

The following maps illustrate in outline form our draft proposals for unitary patterns of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk.

Map B1 illustrates where Waveney district has been divided under our draft proposals and for each of the other patterns of unitary authorities that we have identified in Norfolk and Suffolk.

Map B2 illustrates our draft proposal for Norfolk and Lowestoft:

• Norfolk unitary authority

Map B3 illustrates a two unitary authority pattern (A) for Norfolk and Lowestoft:

• Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft unitary authority • Norfolk unitary authority

Map B4 illustrates a two unitary authority pattern (B) for Norfolk and Lowestoft:

• Norwich unitary authority • Norfolk unitary authority

Map B5 illustrates our draft proposal for Suffolk (less Lowestoft):

• Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority • Suffolk unitary authority

Map B6 illustrates a single unitary pattern for Suffolk (less Lowestoft):

• Suffolk unitary authority Further detailed mapping

We have produced large-scale maps to give further details of the boundaries we have proposed.

These maps are available to view on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. The maps are large scale and are best viewed electronically rather than being printed out. We have asked local authorities to make copies of these A0 size maps available at local information points and libraries as well as council offices.

Sheet 1 of 8 shows two unitary pattern (A) for Norfolk and Lowestoft, including settlements and geographical features at 1:250,000 scale.

67 Sheet 2 of 8 shows two unitary pattern (A) for Norfolk and Lowestoft with parish boundaries.

Sheet 3 of 8 shows two unitary pattern (B) for Norfolk and Lowestoft, including settlements and geographical features at 1:250,000 scale.

Sheet 4 of 8 shows two unitary pattern (B) for Norfolk and Lowestoft with parish boundaries.

Sheet 5 of 8 shows the Norwich area under two unitary pattern (B), including settlements and geographical features at 1:50,000 scale.

Sheet 6 of 8 shows our draft proposal for Suffolk, including settlements and geographical features at 1:250,000 scale.

Sheet 7 of 8 shows our draft proposal for Suffolk with parish boundaries.

Sheet 8 of 8 shows the Ipswich and Felixstowe area under our draft proposal, including settlements and geographical features at 1:50,000 scale.

68 Map B1: Division of Waveney under all patterns

Boundary alignments and names shown on the mapping background may not be up to date. OULTON CP They may differ from the latest boundary information applied as part of this review.

1

CARLTON COLVILLE CP BARNBY CP

NORTH COVE CP

GISLEHAM CP

MUTFORD CP

E L RUSHMERE CP L O C U P G H

2 KESSINGLAND CP

HENSTEAD WITH HULVER STREET CP

SOTTERLEY CP

BENACRE CP

WRENTHAM CP

Key UNITARY AUTHORITY (UA) BOUNDARY EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARY 1 Part of Waveney district in PARISH BOUNDARY Norfolk authority BENACRE CP PARISH NAME 2 Part of Waveney district in Suffolk authority 69 © Crown Copyright 2008 Map B2: Draft proposal for Norfolk and Lowestoft: Norfolk unitary authority

SHERINGHAMSHERINGHAMSHERINGHAM Population Areas

n CROMERCROMERCROMER Main Roads

HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n Railways HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n

n FAKENHAMFAKENHAMFAKENHAM n NORTHNORTHNORTH WALSHAM WALSHAMWALSHAM

AYLSHAMAYLSHAMAYLSHAM n

KING'SKING'SKING'S LYNN LYNNLYNN

n

DEREHAMDEREHAMDEREHAM 1 n n CAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEA SWAFFHAMSWAFFHAMSWAFFHAM

NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n n NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n GREATGREAT YARMOUTHYARMOUTHYARMOUTH TT HH EE BB RR OO AA DD SS n WYMONDHAMWYMONDHAM

DOWNHAMDOWNHAMDOWNHAM n MARKETMARKET n WATTONWATTON

LONGLONGLONG STRATTON STRATTONSTRATTON n n LOWESTOFTLOWESTOFTLOWESTOFT

THETFORDTHETFORDTHETFORD n DISSDISSDISS n Key to Unitary Authority (UA) Key UA Boundary 1 Norfolk Norfolk and Suffolk Broads © Crown Copyright 2008 Map B3: Two Unitary Pattern (A) for Norfolk and Lowestoft: A Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft unitary authority and a Norfolk unitary authority

SHERINGHAMSHERINGHAMSHERINGHAM Population Areas

n CROMERCROMERCROMER Main Roads

HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n Railways HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n

n FAKENHAMFAKENHAMFAKENHAM n NORTHNORTHNORTH WALSHAM WALSHAMWALSHAM

AYLSHAMAYLSHAMAYLSHAM n

KING'SKING'SKING'S LYNN LYNNLYNN

n

DEREHAMDEREHAMDEREHAM n n CAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEA SWAFFHAMSWAFFHAMSWAFFHAM 2

NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n n NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH 1 n GREATGREAT YARMOUTHYARMOUTHYARMOUTH TT HH EE BB RR OO AA DD SS n WYMONDHAMWYMONDHAM

DOWNHAMDOWNHAMDOWNHAM n MARKETMARKET n WATTONWATTON

LONGLONGLONG STRATTON STRATTONSTRATTON n n LOWESTOFTLOWESTOFTLOWESTOFT

THETFORDTHETFORDTHETFORD n DISSDISSDISS n Key to Unitary Authorities (UAs) Key UA Boundary 1 Norfolk Norfolk and Suffolk Broads 2 Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft © Crown Copyright 2008 Map B4: Two Unitary Pattern (B) for Norfolk and Lowestoft: A Norwich unitary authority and a Norfolk unitary authority

SHERINGHAMSHERINGHAMSHERINGHAM Population Areas

n CROMERCROMERCROMER Main Roads

HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n Railways HUNSTANTONHUNSTANTONHUNSTANTON n

n FAKENHAMFAKENHAMFAKENHAM n NORTHNORTHNORTH WALSHAM WALSHAMWALSHAM

AYLSHAMAYLSHAMAYLSHAM n

KING'SKING'SKING'S LYNN LYNNLYNN

n

DEREHAMDEREHAMDEREHAM n n CAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEACAISTER-ON-SEA SWAFFHAMSWAFFHAMSWAFFHAM 1 2 NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n n NORWICHNORWICHNORWICH n GREATGREAT YARMOUTHYARMOUTHYARMOUTH TT HH EE BB RR OO AA DD SS n WYMONDHAMWYMONDHAM

DOWNHAMDOWNHAMDOWNHAM n MARKETMARKET n WATTONWATTON

LONGLONGLONG STRATTON STRATTONSTRATTON n n LOWESTOFTLOWESTOFTLOWESTOFT

THETFORDTHETFORDTHETFORD n DISSDISSDISS

Key to Unitary Authorities (UAs) n Key UA Boundary 1 Norfolk Norfolk and Suffolk Broads 2 Norwich © Crown Copyright 2008 Map B5: Draft proposal for Suffolk (less Lowestoft); an Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority and a Suffolk unitary authority

n BRANDONBRANDON n BECCLESBECCLES BUNGAYBUNGAY BECCLESBECCLES n BUNGAYBUNGAY

HALESWORTHHALESWORTH n MILDENHALLMILDENHALL n n EYEEYE

n n 2 n SAXMUNDHAMSAXMUNDHAM BURYBURY STST EDMUNDSEDMUNDS NEWMARKETNEWMARKET STOWMARKETSTOWMARKET n

n NEEDHAMNEEDHAM MARKETMARKET n HAVERHILLHAVERHILL WOODBRIDGEWOODBRIDGE n HADLEIGHHADLEIGH n IPSWICHIPSWICHIPSWICH SUDBURYSUDBURY n n SUDBURYSUDBURY 1

n FELIXSTOWEFELIXSTOWE

Key to Unitary Authorities (UAs) Population Areas Key 1 Ipswich and Felixstowe UA Main Roads UA Boundary Railways Norfolk and Suffolk Broads 2 Suffolk UA © Crown Copyright 2008 Map B6: Single Unitary Pattern for Suffolk (less Lowestoft); a Suffolk unitary authority

n BRANDONBRANDON n BECCLESBECCLES BUNGAYBUNGAY BECCLESBECCLES n BUNGAYBUNGAY

HALESWORTHHALESWORTH n MILDENHALLMILDENHALL n n EYEEYE

n 1 n n SAXMUNDHAMSAXMUNDHAM BURYBURY STST EDMUNDSEDMUNDS NEWMARKETNEWMARKET STOWMARKETSTOWMARKET n

n NEEDHAMNEEDHAM MARKETMARKET n HAVERHILLHAVERHILL WOODBRIDGEWOODBRIDGE n HADLEIGHHADLEIGH n IPSWICHIPSWICHIPSWICH SUDBURYSUDBURY n n SUDBURYSUDBURY

n FELIXSTOWEFELIXSTOWE

Key to Unitary Authority (UA) Population Areas Key Main Roads UA Boundary 1 Suffolk Railways Norfolk and Suffolk Broads © Crown Copyright 2008 The Boundary Committee Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel 020 7271 0500 Fax 020 7271 0505 [email protected] www.boundarycommittee.org.uk

The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. The Committee’s main role is to conduct electoral reviews of local authorities in England with the aim of ensuring the number of electors represented by each councillor is approximately the same. Other duties include reviewing local authority boundaries and advising the Government on local authority bids for unitary status.