In the first of three articles examining the Boundary Committee’s proposals for new unitary councils in Norfolk, Devon and Suffolk Dermott Calpin looks at the proposals for Norfolk
Commenting on her recent appointment as the new chief executive of South Norfolk DC, Sandra Dinneen suggested: ‘The next few months will be an interesting time for local government in Norfolk.’
Her remark may turn out to be a masterpiece of understatement, since the district council met to confirm her new post only just days before the Boundary Committee for England’s official deadline on its plans to redraw the local government map of Norfolk – and whatever its final proposals when they are published on 31 December, we certainly live in interesting, if indeed not challenging, times.
The Boundary Committee’s draft proposals suggest that the best way forward is for just one giant unitary authority covering the entire county. It wants to scrap the current two-tier structure with Norfolk CC working alongside Breckland, Broadland, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk, South Norfolk and Norwich district councils that has been in existence since 1974 when the last major reorganisation came into effect.
Most controversially – at least for many in neighbouring Suffolk – they want to see Lowestoft and eight parishes in North East Suffolk transferred into Norfolk and argue that the town has far more in common with its neighbour Great Yarmouth and should build on its close social and economic links with the city of Norwich.
That said, members of the Boundary Committee, chaired by former Hackney chief executive Max Caller, also believe there may be some value in merging Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Norwich into a new ‘wedge’ shaped unitary authority to the south of the county while the remainder of Norfolk would form a second unitary council.
And, just to confuse matters even further, they also put forward a slight variation on the double unitary theme, by adding: ‘We also saw merit in a ‘doughnut’ pattern, with one authority for Norwich on expanded boundaries and one for the remainder of Norfolk which would also include Lowestoft.’
Not to be outdone, Norfolk residents have their own distinct views on options for the future and have already put forward suggestions for carving up the county’s population of more than 800,000 into different patterns of one, two, three and even four new unitary councils - with names ranging from Norfolk Coastal, Norfolk Rural and Greater Norwich to West Norfolk, Central and South Norfolk and just Norwich City.
Labour county councillors and their colleagues in Great Yarmouth also believe there is an overwhelming case for establishing a separate Great Yarmouth and Waveney unitary council and the idea has strong support among then party’s councillors in Suffolk and Waveney DC - despite provoking fierce criticism from groups of residents and political rivals.
For many the real villain in the story is of course, Norwich which triggered the structure review and has been actively promoting its case for unitary over the past two years arguing that after 800 year of running its own affairs it is time for the city council to get back the powers to run schools and other services it lost under the 1972 Local Government Act and subsequent 1974 reorganisation.
Norwich argues it has ’overwhelming’ case for being treated as a city region separate from the largely rural county, backed by local opinion polls along with substantive reports from both the Work Foundation and Local Futures Group. There was genuine cross-party surprise that this was ignored when the Boundary Committee published its draft proposals on 7 July with council leader Steve Morphew insisting: ‘It misses the point about the importance of Norwich as a city, as an economic engine for the area and the need for a clear distinction between the need of the urban and rural areas.’
South Norfolk councillors are less impressed by this argument and council leader John Fuller is among many who want to see the present two-tier system retained and he believes the Norwich bid ignores the city’s links with surrounding communities and will be ‘the worst of all worlds’ driving up costs by duplicating management and service organisation.
This view is widely shared, and South Norfolk recently joined forces with Breckland and West Lynn and West Norfolk DCs to seek a judicial review of the whole unitary exercise with a High Court hearing now agreed and expected sometime towards the end of November.
Breckland’s council leader William Nunn argues that the structure review has ignored the key issue of affordability and says: ‘We have stressed right from the start of this process our preferred option was for no change – our priority was and still is to ensure that the people we service continue to receive locally delivered, high quality cost effective services’. While Broadland council leader Simon Woodbridge believes: ‘Millions of pounds of money will be eaten up paying for the reorganisation without a single guarantee that residents will derive any benefits and not a shred of evidence that all the costs savings will be achieved.’
Much of the debate revolves around fears that a single unitary solution will create an unwieldy giant council – second only in size to Birmingham – and the district’s antipathy is shared by the majority of Norfolk’s third tier of local government, the parish councils.
The majority of formal responses submitted by the parishes show strong local support for the existing system with a range of comments from ‘strong opposition’ at Melton Constable and ‘grave concern’ in Fring, to outright ‘horror’ in Antingham and Gimingham, while at Femingham clerk Elain Pugh has told the Boundary Committee: ‘The parish council is aghast and astounded at the amount of money that has been wasted on a very flawed recommendation which is totally unacceptable to the people of Norfolk.’
Norfolk CC is reluctant to abandon the existing structure, but the majority of county councillors are convinced that, if there is to be change, then the county will be best served by a single unitary structure with a report by chief executive David White estimating that it would cut council tax for a majority of householders and generate savings of up t £24.5m a year.
‘Bringing eight Norfolk councils – plus Lowestoft - together to work locally as one offers the biggest potential for savings and the greatest scope for savings,’ insists Mr White, adding: ‘It is up to the Boundary Committee to decide on any final recommendation for change but it is very clear that, of the consultation questions asked of us, the single council option is unequivocally affordable in terms of the criteria set and potentially enables an exciting agenda for change and improvement in public services locally.
Her remark may turn out to be a masterpiece of understatement, since the district council met to confirm her new post only just days before the Boundary Committee for England’s official deadline on its plans to redraw the local government map of Norfolk – and whatever its final proposals when they are published on 31 December, we certainly live in interesting, if indeed not challenging, times.
The Boundary Committee’s draft proposals suggest that the best way forward is for just one giant unitary authority covering the entire county. It wants to scrap the current two-tier structure with Norfolk CC working alongside Breckland, Broadland, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk, South Norfolk and Norwich district councils that has been in existence since 1974 when the last major reorganisation came into effect.
Most controversially – at least for many in neighbouring Suffolk – they want to see Lowestoft and eight parishes in North East Suffolk transferred into Norfolk and argue that the town has far more in common with its neighbour Great Yarmouth and should build on its close social and economic links with the city of Norwich.
That said, members of the Boundary Committee, chaired by former Hackney chief executive Max Caller, also believe there may be some value in merging Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Norwich into a new ‘wedge’ shaped unitary authority to the south of the county while the remainder of Norfolk would form a second unitary council.
And, just to confuse matters even further, they also put forward a slight variation on the double unitary theme, by adding: ‘We also saw merit in a ‘doughnut’ pattern, with one authority for Norwich on expanded boundaries and one for the remainder of Norfolk which would also include Lowestoft.’
Not to be outdone, Norfolk residents have their own distinct views on options for the future and have already put forward suggestions for carving up the county’s population of more than 800,000 into different patterns of one, two, three and even four new unitary councils - with names ranging from Norfolk Coastal, Norfolk Rural and Greater Norwich to West Norfolk, Central and South Norfolk and just Norwich City.
Labour county councillors and their colleagues in Great Yarmouth also believe there is an overwhelming case for establishing a separate Great Yarmouth and Waveney unitary council and the idea has strong support among then party’s councillors in Suffolk and Waveney DC - despite provoking fierce criticism from groups of residents and political rivals.
For many the real villain in the story is of course, Norwich which triggered the structure review and has been actively promoting its case for unitary over the past two years arguing that after 800 year of running its own affairs it is time for the city council to get back the powers to run schools and other services it lost under the 1972 Local Government Act and subsequent 1974 reorganisation.
Norwich argues it has ’overwhelming’ case for being treated as a city region separate from the largely rural county, backed by local opinion polls along with substantive reports from both the Work Foundation and Local Futures Group. There was genuine cross-party surprise that this was ignored when the Boundary Committee published its draft proposals on 7 July with council leader Steve Morphew insisting: ‘It misses the point about the importance of Norwich as a city, as an economic engine for the area and the need for a clear distinction between the need of the urban and rural areas.’
South Norfolk councillors are less impressed by this argument and council leader John Fuller is among many who want to see the present two-tier system retained and he believes the Norwich bid ignores the city’s links with surrounding communities and will be ‘the worst of all worlds’ driving up costs by duplicating management and service organisation.
This view is widely shared, and South Norfolk recently joined forces with Breckland and West Lynn and West Norfolk DCs to seek a judicial review of the whole unitary exercise with a High Court hearing now agreed and expected sometime towards the end of November.
Breckland’s council leader William Nunn argues that the structure review has ignored the key issue of affordability and says: ‘We have stressed right from the start of this process our preferred option was for no change – our priority was and still is to ensure that the people we service continue to receive locally delivered, high quality cost effective services’. While Broadland council leader Simon Woodbridge believes: ‘Millions of pounds of money will be eaten up paying for the reorganisation without a single guarantee that residents will derive any benefits and not a shred of evidence that all the costs savings will be achieved.’
Much of the debate revolves around fears that a single unitary solution will create an unwieldy giant council – second only in size to Birmingham – and the district’s antipathy is shared by the majority of Norfolk’s third tier of local government, the parish councils.
The majority of formal responses submitted by the parishes show strong local support for the existing system with a range of comments from ‘strong opposition’ at Melton Constable and ‘grave concern’ in Fring, to outright ‘horror’ in Antingham and Gimingham, while at Femingham clerk Elain Pugh has told the Boundary Committee: ‘The parish council is aghast and astounded at the amount of money that has been wasted on a very flawed recommendation which is totally unacceptable to the people of Norfolk.’
Norfolk CC is reluctant to abandon the existing structure, but the majority of county councillors are convinced that, if there is to be change, then the county will be best served by a single unitary structure with a report by chief executive David White estimating that it would cut council tax for a majority of householders and generate savings of up t £24.5m a year.
‘Bringing eight Norfolk councils – plus Lowestoft - together to work locally as one offers the biggest potential for savings and the greatest scope for savings,’ insists Mr White, adding: ‘It is up to the Boundary Committee to decide on any final recommendation for change but it is very clear that, of the consultation questions asked of us, the single council option is unequivocally affordable in terms of the criteria set and potentially enables an exciting agenda for change and improvement in public services locally.
Boundary Committee proposals
Norfolk
Create a Norfolk unitary covering the existing county together with the Lowestoft area of Suffolk.
Norfolk
Create a Norfolk unitary covering the existing county together with the Lowestoft area of Suffolk.
7 July – 26 September
Public consultation on draft proposals, boundaries and financial information.
Public consultation on draft proposals, boundaries and financial information.
29 September – 31 December
Final decision by Boundary Committee on its proposals for unitary councils to be submitted to secretary of state for communities and local government.
Final decision by Boundary Committee on its proposals for unitary councils to be submitted to secretary of state for communities and local government.
