sign in sign up
<<
Home , Breckland District, Wretham

Proposals for a review of District Council Ward Boundaries For the consideration of the Local Government Boundary Commission

Proposals prepared by a group made up from:-

Cllr Jordan - Chairman Cllr’s Bambridge, Borrett, Childerhouse and Smith

With declared support from councillors, parish councils and individuals from across the district

Background:

The LGBC considers that the current warding arrangements for , no longer satisfy the requirement for equality of representation The proposal is based on an average electorate of 2,134, and uses the population forecast for 2018 and within a target range of plus or minus of 10% (ten percent). Moreover, the LGBC is of the opinion that for a local authority with Breckland Council’s profile it is over represented, and, consequently, the number of councillors must be reduced. The LGBC has agreed to a reduction in the number councillors’ on Breckland Council, from 54 to 50.

We (the above detailed group) were approached by a number of parish’s who had concerns about the proposals being made by the Council, and produced this alternative set of warding arrangements.

We do respect the work done by officers and members of the council, and we have accepted their arrangements in some wards, but we believe that our proposals better fulfil the declared aims of the LGBC and that they redress the concerns raised by some villages about disrupting communities.

As an informal group of Breckland members who are seeking to represent the views of the parish councils and people of our wards we were led to question some of the conclusions of the Breckland panel working on the warding boundaries. We therefore concluded that we would seek to bring our thoughts to the council as an alternative opinion. Because of time restraints on the council and delays in us making our considered judgements in train with parish councils and others we were too late to affect the decisions made by the council. We do however take up the suggestion of our present and past leader and the LGBC and submit this report as an alternative view for your consideration.

We are mindful of the fact that to alter just one warding boundary affects all of those around it, so we have in fact made a proposal for the whole district. In this we have received support and encouragement from members right across the district, and from parishes and wards which are not affected by our proposals or indeed the councils.

We have used the same data as the councils Boundaries Review Panel and officers in compiling our proposals, and recognise that in the towns we would need to apply additional street level work to accurately establish ward boundaries, but, we are accepting of the work already done by the Breckland officers in this regard and that of individual members in their own areas in re-aligning ward boundaries. In fact, as an example, we

accept in full the proposals for . We have retained the current town boundary of , for the given reasons and have proposed extended arrangements for and . We feel that Watton would benefit from being warded and linked with as two - two member wards with the main North/South highway being the boundary and included in Watton West. but that would have some opposition from local members and remains a thought rather than a proposal

We have detailed below our set of principles for our proposal, but do want to make it clear that we do not have personal preferment in mind. In fact some of us will not be standing in the 2015 elections when this proposal, if accepted, will be implemented.

You will note from the areas we represent that we are from the extreme North to South of Breckland, and that we have received support from all areas covered by the council. As active and consistent ward members we are seeking to represent the views of the residents of our areas, conserve the community cohesion which has been established over many years and to preserve historic links between villages. In doing this we do recognise that a reduction in representation is required, and that changes in population distribution mean that the towns, in particular, as they have absorbed much of the growth, do need to take some of the burden, and that it is inevitable that a review of some boundaries will be inevitable at some stage in the future.

Principles:

Before commencing this review of warding arrangements within the Breckland district we have considered a set of working principles on which to base its review. Those principles are:

· To consider how best to satisfy the representation requirements as laid-down by the LGBC - we have applied the number of electors as forecast for 2018 · To provide stable, future proofed and effective warding arrangements · The towns should no longer restrict themselves to their unchanged 1974 (or older) boundaries; they must be and be seen to be part of the whole. The burden of the review must not be seen to be falling exclusively on rural wards. In the context of this review, it should be understood that there are no town or rural wards; there are only Breckland District Wards. In other words, they are district wards within town boundaries · To maintain, wherever possible, community identity and inter-community relationships. We do note however, the precedent of Attleborough with Besthorpe as a mixed town/rural ward · To ensure that one community does not over dominate another and to seek to ensure a fair representation throughout the community of Breckland · That we reflect the declared opinions of the individual communities as far as is possible within the requirements of the LGBC · To seek to retain a good rural/urban balance in the council chamber · We recognise that all current parish and town boundaries and local councils will remain in place with their same powers throughout this review

We have sought to apply each of these principles to our preferred options. It should be noted, however, that we have not made alternative recommendations on all of the Breckland Councils warding arrangements proposals. We have limited our consideration to those areas which we feel do not compromise our working principles especially those

which support community cohesion. Our proposals as attached do however cover the whole of Breckland.

Proposals:

The consideration of our proposal includes a partial review commentary of Breckland Council’s submission as published for the council meeting on 5th September and other suggestions publicised locally to date.

Our proposals in detail are attached as Appendix A below.

Our detail of electoral variances compared as far as possible with the councils, and against 2012 numbers and 2018 numbers are attached as Appendix B below.

Our suggestion for names to wards is based on traditional names or names with local connections and is attached as Appendix C below.

Our map is Appendix D below.

Our thinking processes, using our suggested ward boundaries and names are:-

Thetford: We considered the proposals submitted by Thetford members that the parishes of: Croxton, and Brettenham, be incorporated in to expanded Thetford wards, with a consequential increase in the number of members representing the town from 9 to 10.

We also considered the representations made by Councillors’ Chapman-Allen and Jolly that the above-mentioned parishes remain within their rural community context.

We also considered the development implications for this general area, arising out of the new local development plans. While there will be considerable development in the general area, much, if not most, of the proposed development will be within the surrounding parishes and not Thetford town itself.

Following due consideration, we concluded that that the wholesale incorporation into the Town of three parishes with a joint population of 2,773, was inappropriate, and against one or more of our working principles. As much of the development in the general area will be in the parishes surrounding Thetford, rather than in Thetford itself. In our view , such a dramatic, fundamental and permanent change to the environment and, in all probability, the quality of life of the parishioners; such will be the magnitude of change, we feel that any and all changes should be determined by the people of all of the communities affected and not in the interest of Thetford alone. We are of the opinion that it is preferable for there to be a conversation of equals, rather than Thetford centred members exclusively controlling the development and community agenda. While we are mindful that Thetford is the local service centre for the surrounding parishes, it is the surrounding parishes that accommodate the future development land. In this particular context we support the principle set out in the submission by Councillors Chapman-Allen and Jolly although we make some adjustments.

It is perhaps worth noting that approximately 10 years ago, Thetford put forward proposal to bring Brettenham, within the town. This move was strongly resisted by the parish.

Breckland Council rejected the proposal, as it was felt that it was not in the interest of the parish or its parishioners

Finally, based on the 2018 figures, we feel that Thetford is over-represented with its current 9 members i.e., 17,987 ÷ 9 = 1,998 electors to members. We recommend that, on the 2018 figures that Thetford’s representation should more accurately reflect its electorate and be reduced from 9 to 8 members i.e. 17,987 electors ÷ 8 members = 2,248. It should also be noted that representation and accountably within a town is geographically less problematic than in large disparate rural wards.

Therefore our proposal for the Thetford area is that the surrounding parishes be accommodated into a new rural ward, Forest through which they will be able to work with Thetford and the Breckland Planning Authority as equals. The new ward, will include , , Stanford, Sturston, Croxton, Kilverstone and Brettenham, with a combined 2018 electorate of 4,182 ÷ 2 members = 2,091 per member. The submission by Councillors’ Chapman-Allen and Jolly, which is generally supported us, recognises that the alternative ward arrangements are bisected by the A11 and we concur with them that this should not be a problem in this area.

However, it is the preference of the communities themselves and of the local members that this non-conformity, should not detract from the benefits to and desire of, the affected communities. This is of particular importance as there is a proposal for extensive growth within the villages and it is possible that town and parish boundaries may need to be considered at some future date, which will raise other issues and will be dealt with at that time. They are not addressed in our proposals and indeed should not be.

We proposed that the district seat lost to Thetford should be reallocated in to the rural area to assist in equalising the burden consequent on the introduction of the new warding arrangements. We recommend that the current East Guiltcross ward be retained with some re-alignment (see below).

Attleborough: We recognise that the town will also be subject to significant development under the new local plans, and we are mindful that the town will experience a number of infrastructure issues over the coming years as resources become tighter. On the whole we are generally at ease with the arrangements for Attleborough. This said we believe the situation for the town will improve if the town, which is warded, were to be incorporated with the village of , which looks to Attleborough as its local service centre, and like the town sits astride of the B1077, which links, just outside of the town centre, with the A11 trunk road. (see our reference to Besthorpe above)

Currently, the electorate for Attleborough with Besthorpe (2018 figures) is 10,831 ÷ 5 = 2,166 electors per member. Should these proposals be adopted; Attleborough, Besthorpe and Old Buckenham (2018 figures) would have a combined electorate of 11,731 ÷ 6 = 1,955 electors per member. The overall level of representation will actually be improved. As a six member town it will increase the towns position and profile in seeking to secure the necessary infrastructure, as Old Buckenham residents, who need to access the A11 to travel south to Thetford, Newmarket, and London, or north to , all will pass through the town centre. There is therefore a strong reliance by Old Buckenham on Attleborough, for both services and transport links.

Our proposals for Attleborough may well seem contrary to those for Thetford, but we feel that the differences in the situation of the two towns, both slated for major development

are so different that it is warranted. Proposals for around Thetford being in the rural parishes and those around Attleborough being within the town.

East Guiltcross: We believe that retaining this ward satisfies all of its working principles, and this justifies the proposal. On 2018 figures the current ward is unviable; electorate 1,609. Should our proposals for Attleborough and Old Buckenham be accepted, the ward can be reconfigured, i.e. , Banham, with Eccles and , 1,980; a viable ward.

All Saints: The Breckland proposals for this ward are not future proofed, in that known potential growth in this area may well trigger the necessity for another ward boundary review. Nor do they satisfy any of our working principles. Moreover, it fails the criterion laid-down by the boundary commission, e.g. that trunk roads form a ‘natural’ ward boundary (in this case creating problems). The Breckland figures for 2012, should an adverse variance in the region of 30%, the figure which would trigger a new review. Without any justification the 2018 figures claim that this adverse variance will fall but to only 14%, which is considerably over the average plus10% electors to member requirement. There is of course, no evidence that the 30% adverse variance will actually fall. Indeed the opposite is likely. The ward currently has an unfavourable variance in representation of plus 4%.

The minutes of the Parish Council confirm that representations have been made to the Parish Council by residents of West Carr Road, Attleborough, in which they desire to have their area transferred from the Town of Attleborough and in to the of Great Ellingham. In addition, and also confirmed in the minutes of the Parish Council, that the Community Right to Build project for a new village hall, could see up to and additional 20 dwellings in the village. It is certain that the closure of the Breckland Roofing storage facility and neighbouring commercial garage, could well see up to a further 15/20 new dwellings. This is in addition to developments elsewhere in the ward. The Breckland proposals are not future-proofed and have the real potential to destabilise any new warding arrangements. See Appendix B.

The parishes of Great Ellingham and have recently lost their public houses and in Rocklands the future of the only shop/post office is in doubt. And for those already hard pressed communities to suffer such a considerable reduction in their entitlement to representation will be both discriminatory and inequitable.

We recommend that the village be retained in the ward, with the addition of the village of . This will create a stable and future-proofed ward, with an electorate of 2,149 electors to member.

We recommend that the current name of the ward, All Saints, should be retained. While there are two Ellingham’s, there are also two Rocklands communities. The neutral name is preferred.

Watton: We are of the opinion that the town of Watton is a geographically small and has always enjoyed a favourable level of representation, within its pre-1974 boundaries. We are applying our working principles and are of the opinion that Watton should accept a fair share of the burden of increased numbers per councillor, resulting from the new warding arrangements. It is proposed that the village of , which is just outside the town

boundary and looks to the town as its natural service centre, should be added to the Watton electoral area, the addition of Griston will not require the town to be warded.

The 2018 figure give Watton an electorate of 6,678 ÷ 3 = 2,226 electors to member. Figures based on the addition of Griston are, 7,160 ÷ 3 = 2,386 electors to member. While this is figure is slightly over the plus10% figure we feel, as Watton is has the smallest geographical area of any of the five towns, this small variance is not so significant as to preclude the town sharing the burden in the new LGBC warding arrangements. There is no ’natural’ boundary between the two communities, and it is accepted that as the local plan develops, the Griston area is likely to grow as the space for development in the town itself reduces. At the moment much of the development in the Watton area, is taking place in the neighbouring parish of Carbrooke.

Carbrooke: Carbrooke is itself a viable ward with an electorate of 1,941. we propose, as a consequence of Ellingham (All Saints) ward retaining the parish of Scoulton, that Carbrooke and Ovington should come together a ward with a variable electorate of 2,173.

Because of the comments above we are of the opinion that Watton and Carbrooke could legitimately be combined into a Warded Watton with two two member wards a division along the North/South highway works well geographically and numbers wise and would we feel further enhance the representation on the district council for residents. This would be an alternative option

Shipdham-with-: We propose that an effective two-member ward, with parishes that look to Dereham as their local service centres, should be created to include the parish of Bradenham. The new ward will have an electorate of 4,628 ÷ 2 = 2,314 electors to member. We are of the opinion that this arrangement will provide for community identity and interest, with the proximity of the wards to Dereham, and, moreover, provide the rural parish of Bradenham effective representation.

Swaffham: The town of Swaffham has a (2018) electorate of 6,469 ÷ 3 = 2,156. We propose that the un-warded town, accept its share of the new arrangements by addition the two neighbouring parishes of and , both of which look to the town as their local service centre. The addition of the Pickenhams', produces an electorate of 6,916 ÷ 3 = 2,305 electors to member. We are of the opinion that this arrangement satisfies the working principles, and importantly, they enable the Nar-Valley ward to become viable. Under the Breckland proposals Nar-Valley has an electorate of 1,809 per member. This proposal produces an electorate of 2,089 electors per member.

Bedingfeld Ward: This is a new ward formed from the large and incredibly unwieldy ward proposed by Breckland. We believe that our proposed Bedingfeld ward satisfies all of our working principles, in particular providing more effective community representation and equality, in this relatively remote rural area. The ward is possible by not granting Thetford a tenth and unjustifiable ward. It also seeks to maintain an equitable balance between town and country

Wayland: By adding Griston to Watton, the proposals by Breckland for Wayland ward become unviable. As the deletion of the current Wissey ward, make its possible to create two wards in the rural area, enables Swaffham town to accept some of the burden for the new arrangements, it also makes Nar-Valley and Wayland ward viable with regard to elector number (2018).

We also propose that Ashill, part of the old Wissey ward, is amalgamated with , to create a viable reconfigured ward Hills, this satisfies our working principles. The length of the common boundaries between the parishes of Ashill and Saham Toney, together with their near equality in size, makes a proposed ward a good fit

To ensure that Wayland ward is able to meet the LGBC electorate criterion, it is proposed that the remainder of the Wissey ward be incorporated in to a reconfigured Wayland.

Breckland proposals for Wayland produce an electorate of 2,260 electors to member. Our configuration produces an electorate of 2,262 electors to member.

The overall the benefits to the district as a whole resulting from our arrangements, more than outweigh any possible disadvantages. The arrangements are future-proofed.

Hermitage: Whilst having no real problem with the proposals by Breckland, its proposed arrangements affects the whole of the North East of the district, consequently we are proposing the simple change of removing the parish of to the Upper Wensum ward leaving, 2,128 voters. Upper Wensum would gain Brisley but lose to Eynsford (Lyng) leaving 1,926 voters.

Eynsford: It is recommended that Eynsford retain Foxley, which is a village with intimate links to and , and also gain from leaving 1,942 voters. The parishes of Foxley, Bawdeswell and Bylaugh have all confirmed to the sitting member that they wish to retain their present linkages within a single ward whatever conformation is decided upon. The addition of Elsing confirms other existing local linkages with these villages and Lyng. In the existing ward of Eynsford four of the five villages objected to the Breckland proposals and all of them support this proposal.

Whitewater (Swanton Morley) would remain a 2 member Ward with 4,025 voters (2 x 2,012)

Two Rivers: We consider that Two Rivers remain as it is today this will leave it at 3,297 (x 1,649) and therefore a high representation for the District. Our reasons for this include the potential for growth within the Ward. itself is the largest village within the District and with having a separate half hourly East/West Bus service and all the elements of a service centre village except a doctors surgery (2 miles) there is a potential for growth over and above natural levels to future proof the ward within the councils local plan being considered now, and its proximity to the proposed and funded expansion of the Norwich research park within 15 minutes drive and easy public transport links. We expect pressure for these four villages to grow, has often expressed the desire to expand

Upper Yare. We consider that work completed over more than a decade in bringing these villages together in the Upper Yare Partnership is worth retaining for the wellbeing of these communities. The communities have expressed a strong desire to maintain their current arrangements, at a time when many important amenities e.g., post offices, shops; public houses are under threat or closing.

Launditch. to remain much as Breckland suggested

Necton will be joined with to improve the balancing of representation

West Guiltcross will be retained as shown

Harling and Heathlands will be formed as shown

Dereham would retain 7 members warded as local members have suggested in Appendix A

Thetford would reduce from 9 to 8 members to take account of the 2018 numbers as suggested in Appendix A

The overall the benefits to the district as a whole resulting from our arrangements, more than outweigh any possible disadvantages. The arrangements are future-proofed Appendix B

We have selected names for all of the wards based upon their traditional name or upon prominent local connections. With some of the names we have local support from the parishes but we are not dogmatic about these names and will concede to local opinion in all cases as the consultation process continues in the New Year. We have made our justification for them as below in Appendix C

WE SUBMIT TO LOCAL COMMENT ON THESE NAMES

Appendix A

Ward Number of councillors

All Saints: 1 Great Ellingham, , Rocklands, Scoulton, Shropham, Attleborough (incl Old Buckenham): 6 Burgh & Haverscroft, Queens Bedingfeld (new): 1 Cockly Cley, , , Foulden,, , Munford, Carbrooke-with-Ovington: 1 Carbrooke, Ovington Dereham: warded 7 Central, Humbletoft, Neatherd,Toftwood East Guiltcross (retained): 1 Banham, New Buckenham, Quidenham & Eccles, Snetterton Eynsford: 1 Bawdeswell, Bylaugh, Elsing, Foxley, Lyng,

Forest: 2 Brettenham, Croxton, Kilverstone, Lynford, Stanford, Sturston, Weeting with Broomhill Harling (Heathlands): 1 , , Harling, ,

Hermitage: 1 , Hornington, , Stanfield, , , , Hills 1 Ashill, Saham Toney Saham Hills Launditch: 1 Beeston,Bittering, East , , , , , , Newton, Rougham Nar-Valley: 1 , , Narborough, , : 1 Holme Hale, Necton -with-Scarning: 2 Bradenham, Scarning, Shipdham Swaffham-with-Pickenhams 3 (unwarded): Swaffham, North Pickenham, South Pickenham Thetford: 8 Abbey, Castle, Guildhall, Saxon or alternatives Two Rivers: 2 East Tuddenham, Hockering, Mattishall, Upper Wensum: 1 Billingford, , Brisley, , , , Twyford Upper Yare: 1 , , , Whinburgh,

Watton-with-Griston (unwarded): 3 Watton, Griston Wayland: 1 , , , , , Merton, , Thompson, Tottington, Wrentham

West Guiltcross: 1 Blo’ Norton, , , Whitewater: 2 , , Hoe, , Swanton Morley, Wendling

Total Councillors 50

Appendix B

Review Panel Electoral Variance Our Electoral Variance

Ward 2012 2018 2018 2012 Ward

Ashill 16% 4% 11% 28% Bucks & Banham Attle. Queens -32% 11% 11% 19% Garboldisham Attle. H’croft 15% 9% 11% 22% Harling & H’lds Banham 28% 11% -2% -46% Croxton Carbrooke -19% 1% -6% -5% Thetford Colkirk 11% 0% 6% -8% Attleborough Dere. W’burga 5% 6% 0% 13% Ellingham Dere. N’herd -9% -7% 6% 11% Wayland Dere. T’wood 12% 0% 6% 15% Mid Forest Ellingham 30% 14% -2% 4% Narborough Griston 12% 6% 8% 6% Swaff & Pick’s Harling 22% 11% 11% 20% Necton Kenninghall 19% 11% 8% 22% Saham Toney Litcham 3% -5% 7% -3% Watton Lyng 20% 3% 0% -4% Shipdham Mattishall 5% 1% -4% -1% Upper Yare Narborough -10% -15% -1% 1% Dereham

Necton 2% -5% -23% -16% Two Rivers North Elmham 13% 2% -9% 4% Eynesford Saham Toney 2% -7% -6% 3% Swanton M’ly Scarning 6% 4% -10% 1% Upper Wensum Swanton Morley 8% -1% 0% 12% Colkirk Swaffahm -2% 1% -5% 2% Launditch T’ford Boudica -28% 5% T’ford Burrell -5% -9% T’ford Cathedral -19% -4% T’ford Cl’fields 3% -14% T’ford Furze -13% -14% Watton -2% 4% Weeting -3% -12%

Appendix C

All Saints - this is the traditional name for this group of parishes and local opinion has requested it is retained

Attleborough - we accept that there may well be a discussion on this with addition of the substantial village of Old Buckenham into the warded town with traditional ward names of Burgh & Haverscroft and Queens

Bedingfeld - new ward new name taken from the ancient leading local family

Carbrook with Ovington - being descriptive

Dereham - We accept the local revision which retained the names Central, Humbletoft, Neatherd and Toftwood with their readjustments

East Guiltcross - retained name

Eynsford - retained name

Forest - being descriptive and acceptable to all villages

Harling Heathlands - being descriptive and accounting for boundary changes

Hermitage - being the traditional name

Hills - retaining a local connection within new borders could equally be Ashill and Saham

Launditch - being a traditional name for the area

Nar Valley - local descriptive name One of the chalk streams

Necton - locational name

Shipdham with Scarning - locational name, but we believe others have alternatives

Swaffham with Pickenham’s - locational name

Thetford - Our proposals would require some re-adjustment of boundaries within the town, This would have to happen whichever proposal is made to account for the readjustment to accommodate a reduction in Breckland Councillors from 54 to 50. Our proposal to reduce the number from 9 (present) to 8 would mean that towns of Breckland would return 27 councillors (28 if Watton is warded) and the rural villages 23 (22) councillors balancing the representation as almost exactly half the population live in each division. We are not suggesting names for the Thetford wards, the traditional names are acceptable, but also the new proposals of Boudicca, Burrell, Cathedral, and Castlefields all of which have local importance and relevance

Two Rivers - retains the traditional name

Upper Wensum - local descriptive name One of the Norfolk chalk streams

Upper Yare - local descriptive name One of the Norfolk chalk streams

Watton with Griston - un warded local descriptive name

Wayland - local connotations name

West Guiltcross - local traditional name

Whitewater - local descriptive name One of the Norfolk chalk streams. We are aware that some local support is for Lincoln because of local connections

APPENDIX D map