Summary of analysis and recommendations for the review of local government in on the basis of extensive public opinion surveys 1993-94

Original research carried out by Opinion Research Services Ltd Original report written by Dale Hall, Managing Director 1 Introduction The original report was based upon fifteen public opinion surveys conducted discontinuously throughout Suffolk during the period July 1993 to February 1994.

1.1 Structure of local government In the residents' survey there was almost an absolute majority in favour of a unitary structure for local government; in Forest Heath and Mid Suffolk there was majority support for the two-tier system; and elsewhere opinion was about evenly divided on the merits of one- and two-tier authorities. 2 Structural options - possible mergers Respondents were asked for their first, second and most disliked options and a 'weighted net score' was derived for each option. The weighting system used multiplies every percentage point for a first preference by +2, every percentage point for a second preference by +1, and every percentage point for a most disliked option by -1; and then aggregates the products. Thus:

% First preferences x +2

% Second preference x +1 Æ aggregated to the weighted net score

% Worst Option x -1

2.1 Unitary County option There was very little support indeed for the idea of a unitary county when people were asked about specific options for change. The following results contrast the low 'weighted net scores' for the unitary county with the corresponding scores for the most popular option in the respective districts or areas. SURVEY AREA UNITARY COUNTY MOST POPULAR OPTION WEIGHTED NET SCORE WEIGHTED NET SCORE Babergh Residents -21 +113 Southeastern Mid -19 +89 Suffolk Western Mid Suffolk - 3 +78 Central Mid Suffolk + 2 +73 +15 +68 Felixstowe Peninsula -10 +66 Central Suffolk Coastal -43 +93 Northern Suffolk Coastal -47 +125 Forest Heath -34 +150 St Edmundsbury -48 +100 Residents Waveney - Stage I - 4 +121 Waveney - Stage II -53 +127

Page 1 of 5

The unitary county option has such low weighted net scores because in many of the surveys referred to above it was the least favoured option for a majority - sometimes an absolute majority - of residents.

2.2 Ipswich by-pass area • Nearly half the respondents said they strongly disapprove of extending the Borough's boundaries to include them within Ipswich. A further 16% tend to disapprove. • Overall, only 3% of respondents said they 'very strongly feel they belong to or identify with Ipswich' and 19% said fairly strongly. So, whereas between a fifth and a quarter identify with Ipswich, nearly two-fifths do not. In contrast, over half say they identify with Suffolk County, and seven in ten identify with their immediate neighbourhood or village.

2.2.1 Western side: Babergh residents • Many opposed the extension of Ipswich's boundaries. • The minimal extension of Ipswich's boundaries to the A12/A45 is clearly more popular than 'greater Ipswich'. • A quarter of residents supported the extension of Ipswich to the A12/A45; a further one in nine respondents opted for a 'greater Ipswich'. Some kind of extension of Ipswich becomes the most popular option overall for Babergh residents living within the A12/A45 'circle'.

2.2.2 Eastern side - Suffolk Coastal residents • For Suffolk Coastal residents living within the A12/A45 'circle' one option stood out as the most popular by a substantial margin: the merger of Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk districts. • The prospect of a merger with Waveney was the most popular second choice in terms of weighted net support - mainly due to the numbers of people considering the extension of Ipswich to be the worst of choices. Almost half the residents preferred either the Suffolk Coastal-Mid Suffolk or Suffolk Coastal-Waveney mergers. • Many Suffolk Coastal residents living within the A12/A45 'circle' consider a merger with Ipswich to be the worst option. Therefore, the villages on the eastern side of the A12/A45 'circle' are less inclined to join Ipswich than communities on the western side.

2.3 'Greater Ipswich'

2.3.1 Felixstowe • For Felixstowe residents preferred two merger options by a significant margin: o first, a merger of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney districts; and o second, a merger of Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk districts. Nearly half the respondents preferred one of these two options as their first choice. • Only 6% supported a 'greater Ipswich' on first preferences; and over a third (35%) thought it the worst option. Only one in a hundred Felixstowe residents identifies with Ipswich. The same tiny proportion strongly approved of joining some kind of 'greater Ipswich' through the extension of the Borough boundaries to include Felixstowe; and only one in twenty even tended to approve. • While travelling away from home the great majority of residents refer to Felixstowe when asked where they live. Nine out of ten do their main food shopping in Felixstowe and two-thirds do their main shopping for clothes and goods there, though 57% use Ipswich primarily. Six in ten respondents live in households where

Page 2 of 5 the main wage-earner works in Felixstowe, while less than half work in Ipswich. Overwhelmingly, people use Felixstowe for schooling, leisure and clubs and societies. • First preference support for a unitary county was counterbalanced by a similar proportion disliking it the most.

2.3.2 Felixstowe Peninsula • Felixstowe and Woodbridge remain important for many Peninsula residents even though relatively few work there compared to Ipswich. Only one in a hundred respondents said they 'feel they belong to or identify very strongly with Ipswich'; and only one in twenty said their sense of identification with Ipswich is fairly strong. Residents in the Peninsula find Woodbridge more accessible than Ipswich. • Opposition to the greater Ipswich option is even more pronounced in the Felixstowe Peninsula than in Felixstowe itself. Only two respondents in a hundred strongly approved of joining some kind of 'greater Ipswich' through the extension of the Borough boundaries to include Felixstowe and the Peninsula. Only 7% even tended to approve. In contrast, one in eight tended to disapprove and well over half strongly disapproved. • For Felixstowe Peninsula residents two options stood out as the most popular on first preferences: o first, a merger of Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk districts; and o second, a merger of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney districts. Nearly half the respondents preferred one of these two options as their first choice.

2.3.3 Shotley Peninsula • Nearly six in ten residents opposed the extension of Ipswich's boundaries. Only two respondents in a hundred strongly approved of joining some kind of 'greater Ipswich'. Only one in fourteen even tended to approve. In contrast, one in five tended to disapprove and nearly four in ten strongly disapproved. • Well over half the respondents preferred either the Babergh-Mid Suffolk merger or 'greater Ipswich', though support for Ipswich was counterbalanced by those who thought it the worst option. • The area surveyed was larger than the Shotley Peninsula narrowly understood and extended westwards to cover the area of the one-time Samford RDC. • Shotley residents seem to have several foci of identity and 'belonging' - from their local villages to the District of Babergh, Ipswich and the County area. Identification with their own district and the county is somewhat higher in Shotley than in some of the other 'border areas' surveyed, but identification with Ipswich is weak.

2.3.4 Conclusions overall • On the grounds of identity and general sentiments, and also on the grounds of specific political preferences, the idea of 'greater Ipswich' seems generally very unattractive to the residents of the four areas most affected. • In Felixstowe majority opinion is against enlarging Ipswich's boundaries to include Felixstowe and also against a new unitary authority based upon a 'greater Ipswich'. • In Felixstowe Peninsula residents do not find Ipswich more accessible than Woodbridge; and they are not particularly dependent upon the town, except for work. The opposition to 'greater Ipswich' is even more pronounced in the Peninsula than in Felixstowe. For Peninusula residents the most popular option overall was a merger of Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk, followed by a merger with Waveney. • In the Shotley Peninsula area majority opinion is against enlarging Ipswich's boundaries to include the Peninsula area and also against a new unitary authority based upon a greater Ipswich.

Page 3 of 5 2.4 Suffolk coast or 'east Suffolk' area(s) For central Suffolk Coastal residents a merger with Waveney stands out as having emphatic first preference support. The idea of a unitary county has very little support.

2.4.1 Northern Suffolk Coastal • Ipswich is little used by the northern Suffolk Coastal residents for shopping, but four in ten use for main food shopping and almost half use the town for other household shopping. More people use Norwich for clothes and household goods than use Ipswich. Otherwise, Halesworth is relatively prominent for work, schools, leisure and clubs. • Northern Suffolk Coastal residents give overwhelming support to the prospect of a merger between their district and Waveney. Therefore, central Suffolk Coastal residents join with those in Felixstowe in favouring a coastal authority on a north- south axis.

2.4.2 Waveney • In Lowestoft a merger with Suffolk Coastal has greater net weighted support than linking with Great Yarmouth. A proposal to merge with Great Yarmouth would divide Lowestoft radically: half might support it, but more than a fifth would think it the worst option and nearly four in ten would prefer to link with Suffolk Coastal. If the Great Yarmouth option would divide Lowestoft, it would certainly divide the district as a whole - for in the south those favouring a merger with Suffolk Coastal outnumber those favouring Great Yarmouth by six to one. • It is important that a merger with Great Yarmouth is the worst option for about a fifth of the residents in Waveney as a whole. Hence, the Waveney-Suffolk Coastal merger wins clearly in terms of net weighted support overall.

2.4.3 Conclusions Overall • Waveney reciprocates Suffolk Coastal's attraction. The prospect of a coastal authority formed through a combination of the two districts is the most popular option there, too. Although Great Yarmouth has some attraction, a proposal for any such merger would be highly divisive; and no other merger option has any significant degree of support.

2.5 Central Suffolk or 'west Suffolk' area(s) • The prospect of a unitary county has hardly any support and faces considerable opposition - rated the worst option by more than two-thirds of St Edmundsbury residents. Nearly half Mid Suffolk residents see the creation of a single county authority as the worst option. • There are some differences between the east and west of Babergh - with Sudbury and the western areas favouring St Edmundsbury and Hadleigh and the east favouring Mid Suffolk. • In St Edmundsbury residents supported either a merger with Forest Heath alone or a larger unit equivalent to 'West Suffolk'. Four in ten of western Mid Suffolk residents said they identify with the St Edmundsbury district council area. 3 Conclusions and recommendations for Suffolk

3.1 Unitary county There is hardly any support for a unitary county and considerable opposition to the prospect. Although Suffolk residents identify with the county, they make, in effect, a

Page 4 of 5 distinction between sentiment, or traditional attachment to the county area (on the one hand) and political structure (on the other). Because the public's main criteria for the successful reform of local government are the cost and quality of services, accountability, responsiveness and accessibility, they reject a unitary county option resoundingly.

3.2 Extending Ipswich's boundaries • There is considerable opposition to the small-scale extension of Ipswich's boundaries to the eastern perimeter of the A12/A45 'circle' - to incorporate some of the present Suffolk Coastal. The Suffolk Coastal residents with the A12/A45 'circle' strongly favour a merger of Suffolk Coastal with Mid Suffolk. • There is some support for the small-scale extension of Ipswich's boundaries to the western perimeter of the A12/A45 'circle' - to incorporate some of the present Babergh. Some kind of extension of Ipswich becomes the most popular option overall for Babergh residents living within the A12/A45 'circle'. • There is very little support for a 'greater Ipswich' incorporating Felixstowe, the Felixstowe Peninsula, southeastern Mid Suffolk and the Shotley Peninsula. • Majority opinion in Felixstowe is against enlarging Ipswich's boundaries to include Felixstowe and also against a new unitary authority based upon a 'greater Ipswich'. The most favoured option overall in Felixstowe is a merger of Suffolk Coastal with Waveney. • Felixstowe Peninsula residents have more positive attitudes towards Suffolk Coastal District Council than do their fellows in Felixstowe; and their opposition to 'greater Ipswich' is even more pronounced in the Peninsula than in Felixstowe. For Peninsula residents the most popular option overall was a merger of Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk. • Shotley Peninsula residents use Ipswich for many social purposes and find the town more accessible than Hadleigh, they are resistant to the extension of Ipswich's boundaries to include them. Majority opinion is also against a new unitary authority based upon 'greater Ipswich'.

3.3 Political structure - assuming Waveney is to merge For residents in Felixstowe, central Suffolk Coastal and northern Suffolk Coastal a merger with Waveney stands out as by far the most popular option. In Felixstowe Peninsula it is the second choice, with Mid Suffolk being the favourite. Waveney is the second choice. In Waveney, too, a merger with Suffolk Coastal has the greatest overall support. The only real rival option is a merger with Great Yarmouth - which is popular only in the north of Waveney (where it also faces considerable opposition). Even in Lowestoft a merger with Suffolk Coastal has greater support than merging with Great Yarmouth. In the Stage I study, Suffolk Coastal was by far the most popular candidate for a merger; but in the Stage II survey, Suffolk Coastal and Great Yarmouth were joint second best options with equal weighted net scores overall. However, in Stage II, opposition to Great Yarmouth was evident not only in the south of the district but also in Lowestoft itself, where opposition to Great Yarmouth was greater than to Suffolk Coastal. Therefore, if a merger took place, then Suffolk Coastal would be the less controversial and more acceptable solution.

Page 5 of 5