One Suffolk

Asingle unitaryCouncil for Suffolk

Response to Boundary Committee questions

Suffolk County Council

Mid Suffolk District Council

9 May 2008

3

1a)Why would your proposed model best address the social and economic challenges of the Suffolk county area?

One Suffolk is a brand new council fit for the twenty-first century – it is not a continuation of any existing council.

The One Suffolk model has four key advantages:

The strongest strategic leadership, providing clearest politicalaccountability, the power needed to deliver economic prosperity and the clarity to take tough political decisions.

• One Suffolk will provide a single voice for Suffolk in dealing with regional and national government, and provide a single interface with the PCTs, police and neighbouring counties

• Urban areas – Ipswich and Lowestoft - will still be in control of their town within a strategic framework.

• One Suffolk will have the resource base to invest in Lowestoft, Ipswich and other areas of regeneration to make them prosper.

The political will and capacity to deliver genuinely local neighbourhood engagement.

• New Community Boards will bring together citizens, unitary and town and parish councillors, police, doctors, head teachers and others to make decisions about local service delivery.

• Town and parish councils will get more say in how services are delivered.

• Rural areas will get a lot more influence and more discretion to spend money locally, without town and parish councils needing to raise their precept, and

• One Suffolk will give councillors the power they need to speak up for the communities they represent.

The resources to provide high quality, equitable services.

• The easiest council for customers to understand: everything done by one Suffolk council wherever one lives.

• Reduced inequalities. Everyone will get high quality services no matter where they live. One Suffolk will have the ability to cross-subsidise disadvantaged areas to ensure equity in service provision.

• Services provided in each market town will make the council more local.

4

• The safest option: One Suffolk can protect services through the change.

• The capacity to significantly further improve services.

The most affordable solution.

• The most affordable option: eight councils into one will deliver the greatest savings - so the lowest future council tax.

What are the specific problems that a unitary One Suffolk will address?Suffolk faces significant social and economic issues. These are well evidenced and documented in the sustainable community strategy agreed by 2500 organisations across Suffolk in November 2007. They are:

• some of the lowest skills levels and wage rates in the country

• underachievement at school, and poor rates of progression and attainment post-16

• a massive challenge in terms of waste management and coastal erosion

• increasing numbers of vulnerable people in our communities

• rapidly changing communities with young people leaving to find housing and employment elsewhere.

One Suffolk is the only solution which will have the capacity to address all these issues at once.

Economic prosperity, skills, wages and educational attainment

The proposals in the sub-national review to enhance the role of local authorities to promote economic development and regeneration will add force to Suffolk’s ambition to create the most diverse and innovative economy in the East of England.

One Suffolk will focus on key emerging sectors; energy in the north-east; knowledge, IT and creative industries together with port expansion in the south-east; and a potential biotech cluster and aeronautical engineering in the west - with the development of food, culture and tourism across the whole county.

A strong Suffolk voice is required to give coherence and reduce the north/south and rural/urban economic inequalities. One Suffolk will have the leadership, capacity and the powers to set the strategic direction for economic development.

One Suffolk will have the added capacity to engage in the two sub-regional partnerships of key importance to the region; the Haven Gateway and Lowestoft-Great Yarmouth.

5

A pan-Suffolk approach is required to address the widening gap in earnings across Suffolk. Effective relationships with other agencies, such as the sector skills councils and the Learning and Skills Council, are key to dealing with these issues and improving skills and wage rates. Suffolk has worked with the LSC to introduce a ‘skills pledge’ across the county. This supports employers to lever in funding to up-skill their workforce

Significant steps have been taken in recent years to tackle educational under-achievement and lack of aspiration. This includes developing a newuniversity, University Campus Suffolk, a joint venture of the University of East Anglia and the University of Essex. A Suffolk-wide approach has ensured that the university will benefit Lowestoft and West Suffolk –something which a fragmented local government approach would have been unlikely to achieve.

In addition a tough political decision has been taken to drive through a schools organisation review in order to significantly raise achievement. It is clear that progress on raising standards would be jeopardised by a multiple-unitary approach.

Waste management

Suffolk needs to invest in a solution to the waste created by its citizens. Recycling levels in the county are among the highest in the country, but this is not enough: a facility to deal with residual waste needs to be built. The siting of this facility, and the technology to be selected, are the subject of significant controversy. A single Suffolk approach is needed, because this is a whole Suffolk issue that requires a whole Suffolk solution.

Strong and clear political decision making is essential. One Suffolk would provide the necessary accountability to take the tough decisions needed. It would also eliminate the real risk of political deadlock which a multiple-unitary approach would engender. Such deadlock would deter bidders, who face six- or seven- figure bid costs, and who can pick and choose which opportunities to bid for.

Failure to tackle this issue in time would result in Suffolk facing huge fines for breach of its Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme targets and significant increases in landfill tax liabilities. These could total some £21m in 2012/13, rising each year thereafter, although the mitigating contractual arrangements put in place to date would reduce these figures somewhat.

Furthermore, unlike many other counties, Suffolk is rapidly running out of landfill capacity. Failure to implement effective waste disposal contracts in the next few years would be disastrous.

One Suffolk would create the optimum market conditions for a successful waste procurement programme.

Coastal erosion

The total length of shoreline in Suffolk is over 220 miles. There is an increasing threat to Suffolk’s coastline and some 19000 people are at risk

6

from flooding of tidal waters. In Felixstowe, coastal erosion on the sea front is a real issue that is not being adequately addressed for the long term. In addition, coastal flooding caused by tidal surges will be an increasing problem for many Suffolk towns, such as Felixstowe, Lowestoft and Ipswich, unless adequate defences are provided.

Currently there are many different voices lobbying for a solution to the problems caused by coastal erosion. One Suffolk would be a single powerful voice, able to call others to account whilst investing in local solutions.

Vulnerable people

The number of vulnerable children and adults in Suffolk is increasing. By 2021 there will be a 62% increase in adults with dementia. Investing in prevention and delivering high quality personalised services is easier and cheaper when organised at a Suffolk level. One Suffolk will be best placed to develop the systems to deliver personalised social services to those who need them.

Housing

Suffolk will struggle to deliver the government’s higher aspirations for housing growth. Accommodating housing growth in a sustainable fashion, securing sufficient investment in infrastructure, and distributing the burdens equitably is an issue for the entire county. One Suffolk will be best placed to deliver the existing housing targets quickly, and respond to government requests for additional housing growth. This will help to ensure that there is sufficient high-quality, affordable housing for all our citizens.

Environment

Suffolk is stepping up to the carbon challenge with a demanding target to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2025. Meeting this target will require action at all levels and in all sectors of the community - private and public. A strong single unitary authority is needed for Suffolk to drive achievement of the target.

Capacity, quality and flexibilityThe local government solution for Suffolk will need to provide strong strategic leadership, and considerable technical ability, at both member and officer level. The One Suffolk model would maximise officer capacity, and the ability to flex resources as required to support the £2bn worth of major procurements – for waste, highways, back office services, Building Schools for the Future and residential homes - likely to be required in the next five years.

One Suffolk will inherit the strengths of Suffolk County Council - a four star authority, improving well. It would inherit the commissioning model which the county council has developed as part of its Securing the Futureprogramme – one of the most-developed approaches to an enabling authority anywhere in the country. The separation of commissioning and delivery creates flexible pools of expertise in programme management,

7

procurement, performance management and commissioning, which can be flexibly deployed as new challenges arise. This approach has already delivered savings of £7m, rising to £45m by 2011.

One Suffolk would also inherit, without contractual or practical disruption, the joint venture company between SCC, Mid Suffolk District Council and BT plc. This provides ‘back office’ services – HR, Finance and ICT; ‘public access’ services – web-based services, call centres and one-stop shops; and revenues and benefits, student finance and social care assessment. It covers both county and district services, and was the decisive factor in the county achieving £48m of ‘Gershon’ savings over the first two years of CSR04, more than any other shire authority and second only to Birmingham overall. A further £18.5m of savings is expected for 2007/08. Mid Suffolk benefited similarly, and achieved higher efficiencies than any other district.

Smaller unitaries would struggle to attract skilled staff, particularly in areas of skills shortage such as major procurement and planning. They would lack the ability to manage peaks and troughs. Experience elsewhere suggests that they would pay above the odds to attract high-quality chief officers, and that there would be a local bidding war for other highly-skilled staff.

In short, One Suffolk would hit the ground running. It would be best placed to make efficiency savings and to safeguard services. It would have overwhelmingly more change management, ICT, performance management, procurement and finance capacity than any other model could deliver.

8

1b) In particular, consider the following issues- The social and economic challenges of the Ipswich urban area- Neighbourhood arrangements in Ipswich- The specific challenges faced by Felixstowe and, in particular, Lowestoft- Neighbourhood arrangements in Felixstowe and Lowestoft- The challenges of coastal erosion and flooding in the coastal areas of the county

Ipswich has the potential to be a vibrant local economy, generating wealth and prosperity across Suffolk. Development of its Waterfront and the new University Campus Suffolk are important first steps but it still has problems with:

• low educational attainment

• high numbers of children and young people in need

• a lack of affordable housing

• high levels of deprivation in pockets

• crime (including violent crime) and anti-social behaviour

• drugs and prostitution

• teenage pregnancy

• low life expectancy

• traffic congestion.

Ipswich also has the highest density of looked-after children in Suffolk –283 within the current Borough boundary as at end March 2008, almost 40% of the 726 looked after children in Suffolk. Conversely the foster carers, children’s homes and potential adoptive parents largely come from outside the town. As a result a unitary Ipswich would need to place looked after children out of area, requiring joint arrangements in an Ipswich unitary model with additional cost and risk.

The 2007 independent financial analysis of the proposed unitary Ipswich demonstrated that its social challenges require cross subsidy from a broader tax base. It concluded that there as a high risk that a unitary Ipswich for the urban area would not meet the affordability criteria.

Felixstowe’s economy relies heavily on its role as the United Kingdom's leading container port (in the past it was a seaside resort town). The town needs new high- value employment activities, economic diversification, and training and development opportunities in areas beyond the logistics and distribution associated with port expansion.

While much of the built and natural environment is of a high quality, regeneration of parts of Felixstowe is required. One Suffolk will provide the capacity and leadership to develop regeneration programmes and bid

9

effectively for European funding. A ‘Learning Alliance for Felixstowe’ isbeing developed with University Campus Suffolk, BT, Hutchison Port and all the local schools. It will drive up aspirations and attainment through the recruitment of high quality teachers and governors, school leadership development, curriculum development, more apprenticeships and enhanced post-16 options.

In Lowestoft the councils and partners providing services in the town have struggled to meet the needs of the community. Lowestoft has problems with:

• low educational attainment and poor skills levels

• high numbers of children and young people in need

• high numbers of teenage pregnancies

• crime and drugs

• low economic prosperity; low wage jobs and relatively high rates of unemployment – including long term unemployment

• poor infrastructure.

These issues have been recognised and radical steps have been taken.Suffolk has made significant financial and people investment in Lowestoft over the last two years.

Examples are:

• the Schools Organisation Review has been carried out, to raise aspirations and skills. Two-tier schooling has been shown nationally to improve attainment at Key Stage 2. It is anticipated that as a result of the review 4% more Suffolk children will attainSATS Level 4.The review will reorganise schools from three-tier to two-tier in Lowestoft. Three high schools, eight middle schools and twenty-one primaries are affected. There will be a brand new high school and a new post-sixteen learning centre. The reorganisation will be completed by September 2011.

• a Building Schools for the Future programme is under way and gaining momentum – £600m will be invested in school buildings and infrastructure for the whole county, including £100 million in Lowestoft, £200m in Ipswich and £30m in Felixstowe.

• with partners, the county has created 1st East, the urban regeneration company covering Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth.1st East is funded by the Regional Development Agency (EEDA), English Partnerships (the national regeneration agency) and the four local authorities involved – Norfolk, Suffolk, Great Yarmouth and Waveney. Its purpose is to generate economic growth and create jobs by coordinating public and private sector development

10

in the brownfield and waterfront areas of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth.

• £9 million of capital has been invested in OrbisEnergy in Lowestoft by Suffolk County Council, the East of England Development Agency and Waveney District Council. OrbisEnergy will provide workspace, conference and library facilities within the emerging renewable energy sector. It will link businesses with research,stimulating investment. The centre will accommodate up to 33 small and medium sized enterprises, creating 160 jobs. It will open in September 2008.

• The South Lowestoft relief road has been built, costing £30 million, improving the environment and greatly improving accessibility to Lowestoft.

• £1 million SUSTRANS funding has been secured and sustainable transport plans have been developed for Lowestoft.

• Six Children’s Centres have opened in Lowestoft, eleven in Ipswich and two in Felixstowe. In Lowestoft there have been dramatic increases in Foundation Stage Profile scores for children from the areas served by the Children’s Centres. They remain lower than Suffolk scores but are steadily improving – the gap in reading scores at age five has narrowed from 25 in 2005 to 9 in 2007. The average for the county is now 70, that for Lowestoft is 61.

These interventions are beginning to bear fruit. But a small unitary would not have the capacity to drive further improvement. Outcomes would be worse for people in Suffolk.

By contrast, One Suffolk will go further:

• It will provide the leadership and professional capacity to deliver key economic and social programmes for Suffolk and the region.

• It will provide effective strategic leadership for Ipswich and Lowestoft. Ipswich and Lowestoft will each have one portfolio holder on One Suffolk’s Executive to ensure that their economic and social needs are recognised and addressed, and to hold One Suffolk to account for progress in Ipswich and Lowestoft.

• It will roll out delivery of integrated youth services to bring together health, social and educational support and leisure and sport provision to tackle problems such as anti-social behaviour, teenage pregnancy and low self-esteem amongst groups of young people, with partners. In Lowestoft we expect it to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, increase take-up of sports and cultural activity, reduce substance misuse and teenage pregnancy, and increase progression to further education post-sixteen.

11

• It will drive the better outcomes for children and families delivered through the Children’s Centres in Lowestoft, Ipswich and Felixstowe through school age and beyond and link into future economic development.

• It will completely revamp provision of 14-19 education in Lowestoft - developing new facilities to offer advanced and diploma level study to complement Lowestoft College. In Felixstowe and Ipswich 14-19 year olds will be able to access the new 14-19 learning centre in South Suffolk, costing £40 million.

The Lowestoft Together Neighbourhood Management Initiative is working with communities in the most deprived parts of Lowestoft to build community capacity, tackle social exclusion and improve the local environment. One Suffolk’s model of a Lowestoft Community Board would be complementary to this approach.

Neighbourhood arrangements for Ipswich, Lowestoft and Felixstowe (andfor the rest of Suffolk) are described in more detail in our response to Question 15.

Coastal erosion and flooding

From April 2008 the Environment Agency has extended its strategic overview role to cover all matters relating to flood and coastal erosion risk management. Future coast defence policy and funding will be more largely determined by Defra and Environment Agency and the local government role is to influence these as strongly as possible to maximise the multi-objective benefits for the Suffolk coast and communities. One Suffolk will have the greatest capacity and specialism to:

• influence DEFRA, Environment Agency, Natural England and others on national coast defence policy and funding and the regional allocation and priority of schemes

• influence and work together for the provision of a strategic approach to coast defence in Shore Line and Estuary Plans covering the whole of the Suffolk coast, integrating with regeneration, economic development and transport planning objectives for Lowestoft and Felixstowe in particular and alsolandscape, biodiversity and the introduction of public access for the Suffolk Coast & Heath AONB and open coast

• lever in additional funding in meeting above joint objectives such as the Ipswich Flood Management Strategy

• provide the annual Suffolk Flood Defence Levy, currently £350k pa, and provide effective LA representation on the Regional Flood Defence Committee and Coastal Forum

• provide planning and engineering expertise and effective procurement for the local authority to lead on priority coast protection schemes as would be the case for Lowestoft and Felixstowe

12

• influence integrated coastal and water catchment area planning and management under the Water Framework Directive, and flood emergency planning.

13

2) What specifically are the risks of a unitary authority with a large geographical area and population and how well does your concept address these risks?

There are three perceived risks associated with larger unitary areas that One Suffolk has been designed to avoid.

Citizens and local councillors can feel remote from decisions and disempowered in influencing services in their locality.

One Suffolk’s Community Boards will be powerful with devolved resources and decision-making, giving local people and partners a strong voice in shaping their locality. Local councillors will have a key role in listening to and representing their local communities’ priorities when taking decisions at Community Board level, and reflecting this back to the Suffolk level.

One Suffolk will have the capacity to invest in effective ICT that will be critical in ensuring all Suffolk residents have timely and accessible information to enable them to feel more confident in getting involved in their local area.

A key challenge for communities in Suffolk is not a lack of understanding of local issues, but a lack of resources to address these issues. A larger authority with greater scope for efficiency savings will be better placed than smaller authorities to direct these resources back into local communities and frontline services.

Lack of understanding of local communities, and local issues not considered important

Suffolk is a mosaic of communities. One Suffolk will support this diversity through its locally focused Community Boards and through very local decision-making and a high level of local autonomy. Within the One Suffolk model, the local councillor is key to linking the local community to the wider strategic decision-making in the county – acting as a champion for very local issues, and a focal point for devolved decision-making. A unitary councillor acting in a county-wide authority will have a clearer, more defined role than within the current two- and three-tier system, and this more understandable political process is likely to encourage greater engagement by local people.

The One-Suffolk concept will represent a single county-wide authority, but the devolved neighbourhood arrangements mean that this is not a one-size-fits all solution.

The risk of a large unitary is remoteness – citizens feel remote from decisions made about services in their locality.

We recognise this and have designed a concept which dealscomprehensively with this through the local Community Boards. These are described in detail in our response to Question 15.

14

3) Conversely, how can smaller unitaries ensure they have the capacity and ‘critical mass’ to deliver affordable services, while retaining a strategic approach to issues across the county?

In our view small unitaries cannot develop the capacity to deliver affordable services and build in efficiencies.

• There are significant problems with recruitment of good staff in key areas of deprivation in Suffolk – especially in Lowestoft. A county unitary can be flexible in moving resources around to meet needs across Suffolk and can attract people by offering better career progression. Suffolk has already used this approach to deploy senior people to key posts in Waveney and elsewhere.

• A smaller unitary has bigger management overheads and is less able to resource specialist functions; conversely a larger unitary can develop specialist resources more efficiently – for example in fostering and adoption services and economic development.

• Smaller unitary authorities will have less resource and ability to deliver strategic vision for services in their areas.

• Ipswich’s previous unitary bid was rejected on grounds of affordability.

• Many shared services providers have indicated that they are not interested in bidding for business from shared unitaries.

Smaller unitaries would be unable to deal effectively with all of the challenges Suffolk will face in the future.

15

4) A unitary Ipswich is envisaged under a number of proposed concepts – is it likely in your view to command a broad cross-section of support across the county?

We do not believe that the proposal would command a cross-section of support. During the consultation on the Ipswich Unitary proposal in 2007 90% of responses were against implementing a unitary council for Ipswich. 76 out of the 79 responses received from Parish and Town councils were against the proposal, as was the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC).

A wide range of public sector agencies were against the proposal, including all other local authorities, Police, Primary Care Trust and the Strategic Health Authority. UNISON, the NUT and the GMB were against. Of the 361 responses received from the public, the majority were against. Three Suffolk MPs were also against the proposal (David Ruffley, Tim Yeo and John Gummer).

The Borough Council conducted a MORI poll of 1002 Ipswich residents which found that 41% indicated a preference for creating “a new system with a single authority”, but there is an important distinction to be drawn between this question and the issue of whether the single authority should be an Ipswich authority, or pan-Suffolk.

Focus groups carried out at the time found that the vast majority of residents were against the Ipswich proposal.

“It is hard to see how Ipswich would benefit from going it alone”

(Ipswich resident, Local Government Reorganisation Focus Group - December 2006)

An online poll carried out by a local newspaper (Ipswich Evening Star) resulted in 4:1 against.

Support for the Ipswich proposal came from the local MP (Chris Mole), Ipswich Town Football Club and a small number of local businesses.

16

5) What would be the impact on your model if:- a Great Yarmouth/Waveney unitary authority was created;- part or all of Waveney District was added to a unitary authority in Norfolk; or- part or all of Great Yarmouth Borough was added to your model?

A Great Yarmouth/Waveney unitaryA unitary authority for Great Yarmouth and Waveney would have a population of 210,000 (123,000 in built-up areas). It would therefore experience the problems of small unitary councils explained in our response to Question 3.

This proposal would also have specific problems:

• Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are both towns with high levels of deprivation. Great Yarmouth is the most deprived district in the East of England and Waveney is the eighth most deprived. Both districts have experienced an increase in deprivation levels since 2004, with those in Great Yarmouth increasing much faster than those in Waveney.

• Waveney is a large district and areas such as Southwold, Bungay and Beccles do not have strong economic or social links to Great Yarmouth and would feel little connection to the unitary authority.

There would be significant issues around the authority itself.

• The authority would inevitably inherit many of the capacity issues of its predecessor authorities, along with the vast bulk of their staff.

o Great Yarmouth and Waveney have both received a score of one for CPA Use of Resources, whilst Suffolk has scored three. Waveney has suffered from significant performance and leadership issues and has been rated as ‘Weak’.

o The County Council and other authorities in Suffolk havehad to put in significant effort to support Waveney, including seconding members of staff to an Audit Commission improvement team and providing two interim chief executives.

• The authority would lack the capacity to manage the substantial investment programme needed in Lowestoft. Capital spend committed in recent years has totalled some £213m.

• By contrast, One Suffolk would inherit the resources of a four star authority, improving well.

• It would be difficult to recruit high quality staff. This is currently a problem in the area for the county and districts and for the urban regeneration company, 1st East.

17

• The authority would have a low council tax base. In Waveney, 52% of properties are in bands A and B and in Great Yarmouth 68.61% compared with 40% of properties in Suffolk as a whole.

Economic characteristics of Waveney include:

• household income which is lower than Suffolk overall

• slower population growth than the rest of Suffolk - since 2001 Waveney’s population has grown by 4300

• a modest increase in the number of jobs in the last couple of years, against a decline in the period 2001-2006

• 2187 people unemployed in Waveney (2007 figures)

• an increasing proportion of Waveney’s unemployed have been out of work for more than 2 years

• the proportion of employment in knowledge-driven services is half the national average (10.4% v 20.3%)

• during the last ten years, knowledge-driven employment has fallen in Waveney, whereas it has risen in both Suffolk and nationally

• the rate of annual housing completions is continuing to decline

This is a long-term, structural economic problem, and the sub-region is explicitly recognised in the draft East of England Regional Economic Strategy and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy as a priority for regeneration and sustained investment.

There are signs that the substantial investment made so far is beginning to have an effect:

• There is a decreasing reliance on manufacturing and an increasing number of are people employed in construction and in tourism

• The tourism economy is now worth £198.4m per annum

• Waveney attracts nearly four million visits each year.

A small unitary would not have the capacity to maintain the significant levels of investment required to deliver regeneration: recently these have included OrbisEnergy (£9m), the Waveney Campus PSV (£50m), Suffolk’s contribution to the UCS offer in Lowestoft (£1m) and implementation of a transport strategy to reduce congestion (£1.5m).

Waveney joining a Norfolk unitaryThe creation of a larger urban area of deprivation within a county that is itself ranked the most deprived in the East of England would reduce Norfolk’s capacity to address the economic challenges faced by the two towns.

18

Because of the differences in levels of deprivation, Waveney does not receive the additional support that Great Yarmouth benefits from, which has included £8.6m of LEGI funding and £12.3m of National RenewalFunding for the period 2001-8. There is a risk that Waveney, which is relatively affluent, will receive less focus as a regeneration area if it becomes part of Norfolk.

There are strong links between the two towns (8.9% of workers commute from Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth) but less strong between Lowestoft and Norwich, as only 3.3% of workers commute to Norwich. Lowestoft is relatively ‘self-contained’ in relation to work opportunities – 70% of people of working age work in the town and there is low outward commuting.

Towns such as Southwold, Beccles and Bungay identify with Suffolk, not Norfolk (8.4% of workers commute from Beccles to Norwich, 0.8% from Bungay, 5.3% from Southwold). There would be no community of interest between the rest of Waveney and Norfolk.

There is a risk that Waveney would lose the strong link with University Campus Suffolk that is designed to boost the research and innovation capacity of the emerging renewable energy sector, as the Regional Development Agency has indicated that it is seeking further investment from Suffolk to develop the UCS satellites.

Great Yarmouth joining a Suffolk unitaryThis option would maintain connectivity between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth and between Lowestoft and the rest of Suffolk, but it would disadvantage Great Yarmouth because it would sever the strong links between Great Yarmouth and Norwich. For example, 5% of Great Yarmouth’s population commute to Norwich, which is greater than the proportion commuting to Lowestoft. Great Yarmouth’s links are predominantly with Norfolk, not Suffolk.

This option would create an island of urban deprivation in the north of the county and a bigger set of economic challenges for Suffolk, itself ranked the second most deprived county in the East of England. There is a much greater chance of success if One Suffolk, with the authority(ies) in Norfolk, is able to build on the success of the sub-regional partnership to lobby on behalf of the two towns and attract the investment necessary for regeneration.

19

6) How significant are the economic links between Ipswich and Felixstowe in the sub-regional economy and how would your proposed model reflect these links?

Ipswich and Felixstowe are economic drivers and both sit within Haven Gateway ‘engine of growth’ as defined in the draft Regional Economic Strategy and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy

But they are very different in size and nature:

• Felixstowe, with a population of 24,000, has the largest container port in the UK and a major international gateway. It is set to expand its capacity by 29 hectares by 2014. The town’s economy is focused on the port and associated warehousing and distribution activities (representing 45% of total employment in Felixstowe).The town itself, formerly a popular resort, is characteristic of manycoastal towns in the UK: a higher than average proportion of retired people; a high business failure rate; lack of further education facilities; and a run-down town centre. Both the county and district authorities are supporting regeneration of the town centre.

• Ipswich is Suffolk’s county town, with a population of 120,000 and a diverse economy based on public administration, distribution, hotels and restaurants, and banking and insurance. New housing and commercial development on the Waterfront has seen a large increase in construction activity over the past five years.

There are a number of links between the two economies.

• Ipswich is the preferred local location for shipping company headquarters

• in 2001 there was a daily net inflow to Felixstowe of 2,719workers. 3,600 Felixstowe residents, mainly women, commuted to jobs in Ipswich and elsewhere, whilst 6,319 from outside Felixstowe (mainly men) travelled to work in Felixstowe.

• freight traffic from the port of Felixstowe travels west to the midlands via the A14 and the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail line.

• Felixstowe has the potential to become a recreational asset for Ipswich and within Haven Gateway generally

Local plans aim to maintain the distinct identity of the two towns and avoid merging them into one large urban area.

One Suffolk will:

• drive skills development in Felixstowe, including through opening a Learning Enterprise and Access Point (LEAP). This will provide a study centre for students studying UCS courses, as well as signposting and advice on other training opportunities

20

• have the capacity to attract investment to the town for regeneration. For example, One Suffolk would have the greatest capacity to lead projects, enabling it to access a greater share of the European maritime cross-border programmes, worth £200m by 2013

• streamline infrastructure planning for the two towns (both will be included in the Haven Gateway Integrated Development Programme) whilst maintaining their distinct identities: Ipswich as the focus for financial and retail and Felixstowe as the centre for tourism and leisure.

21

7) In terms of the criteria set out in the request for advice (particularly neighbourhood empowerment), what are the issues which the outer area of the proposed Ipswich unitary authority (i.e. beyond the existing city limits) would face? How could they best be addressed?

The outer areas of Ipswich are fundamentally connected to the town by travel to work patterns, transport infrastructure and housing and are key tofuture economic prosperity. However, they are very different in character and need to the “uniquely urban” areas in Ipswich town.

Ipswich’s role as economic driver for Suffolk is crucial. In particular, outer Ipswich must be given the support it needs to drive economic growth in Suffolk.

Each of the three models proposed in Ipswich Borough’s concept present issues for the outer areas of Ipswich reducing the ability to fulfil the criteria set in the request for advice.

Expanded urban Ipswich and Urban IpswichThe previous Ipswich bid and the new concept document argue that a strong focus on the very different needs of Ipswich is needed. An Ipswich unitary based on these boundaries would marginalise the more rural and affluent outer areas as a result of their urban focus. Concerns have already been expressed by parishes on the Ipswich fringe that their “essentially rural” nature may be undermined by an expanded Ipswich unitary border.

These concepts highlight good practice in empowering urban communities but do not identify how outer areas would be engaged.

One Suffolk will establish a Community Board for Ipswich giving a strong voice to its urban communities and Community Boards to capture the different needs of the outer areas. However, it will also provide a countywide strategic framework within which, these boards can work together on areas of joint issues (eg, transport, infrastructure). This ensures both local rural and local urban voices are represented and able to influence both local issues and the overall direction of the county.

Northern Haven Gateway

This model still risks marginalising the less-urban areas as previously stated. However, it also fails to recognise the particular relationship that Felixstowe has with the midlands and Europe. It would not provide the strategic voice and integrated approach necessary to enhance Felixstowe’s unique importance as one of the largest container ports in Europe and maximise the benefits for Suffolk.

All three models for an Ipswich unitary present a higher risk to delivery and value for money, as their boundaries would be too small to provide sufficient capacity and resources to meet the communities’ needs.

22

8) How critical is the inclusion of Ipswich to the success of a One Suffolk unitary authority? In particular, how important is it for the economic and social development of the rest of the county?

A successful Ipswich is vital to a successful Suffolk.

Ipswich is the biggest driver of economic growth and prosperity in Suffolk. The Regional Spatial Strategy recognises Ipswich as:

• A key centre for development and change;

• A priority area for regeneration;

• A regionally significant strategic employment location;

• A regional transport node.

Ipswich is a key partner in the Regional Cities East Programme, aimed at working with other key towns and cities in the East to address the challenges of accommodating growth in a sustainable manner. The towns and cities involved in RCE will collectively deliver 45% of the total growth across the East of England.

The Ipswich Local Development Framework includes plans to create 18,000 jobs by 2020, much of which will be delivered by areas outside the town.

A thriving Ipswich provides a retail centre for Suffolk. In terms of retail ranking, Ipswich town centre lies within the top 40 in the country, but has not improved significantly over the last 10 years.

In addition, the development of the Waterfront and University Campus Suffolk in Ipswich; the expansion of the Haven Ports, growth of Adastral Park and ‘Suffolk Innovation Park’ and the potential major leisure attraction ‘SnOasis’ will contribute to the continuing economic growth of Ipswich and Suffolk.

To deliver this challenging agenda will require the effort of all of Suffolk and the benefits will be for all Suffolk citizens. To thrive Ipswich needs to be part of the wider development of economies across the county.

One Suffolk will be able to look at retail patterns across the county and beyond provide a transport infrastructure that helps the retail sector in Ipswich to grow.

Ipswich requires significant investment in infrastructure particularly to deal with issues of congestion. This has included a shuttle bus service within the town, Ipswich major road scheme, a bus gyratory system, and 3 park and ride services– saves 1m car journeys per year. These all cover an area beyond even the Ipswich Policy Area.

Ipswich is a focus of housing growth, and will accommodate 15,400 new homes 2001-2021 but this represents the maximum housing capacity of the borough. After that it will depend upon expansion into surrounding

23

districts – Babergh, Suffolk Coastal and Mid Suffolk: 4,600 houses will be built on the fringes of Ipswich and another 19,500 dwellings will be distributed elsewhere in these districts. For Suffolk to meet overall housing figures plans need to be developed across the county with Ipswich as a core part.

Placing Ipswich - as the key economic driver in Suffolk – into a separate council will fragment economic development. The key risks are slowing down the pace of growth; failure to attract external investment; and duplication of support to economic development.

24

9) How will these arrangements proposed for Ipswich better meet the criteria in the Secretary of State’s request for advice, compared with those proposed models of unitary local government which envisage an Ipswich unitary authority?

One Suffolk will give Ipswich genuine local power to address its particular issues. It will have a Community Board comprising elected members, representatives from partner organisations – including health and police –and local voluntary and neighbourhood groups. Ipswich will also be represented on One Suffolk executive by a portfolio holder. This portfolio holder will give clear strategic leadership in Ipswich and hold One Suffolk to account for services and outcomes in Ipswich.

Strong Strategic Leadership:Ipswich Borough’s concept says that Ipswich has deprived, urban areas that have different needs to rural areas. However, their solutions for the problems in Ipswich are the ones that One Suffolk is best placed to deliver on - delivering economic growth, better infrastructure, higher skills, and more investment.

One Suffolk will provide a clear strategic vision and voice on key issues in Ipswich:

• raising skills levels, wage rates and economic development; tackling economic and social deprivation

• raising attainment at school and reversing poor rates of progression and attainment post-16

• tackling crime (including violent crime) and anti-social behaviour

• tackling drugs and prostitution

• reducing teenage pregnancy

• tackling low life expectancy, and

• cutting traffic congestion.

As a member of the One Suffolk’s Executive, the portfolio holder for Ipswich will ensure Ipswich’s needs are represented. One Suffolk’s Executive will have sufficient influence at regional and national level to get the best results for Suffolk communities.

Ipswich Borough’s concept highlights Ipswich’s role as a hub for economic, educational and cultural activity; again, One Suffolk will maximise the positive effects across Suffolk by:

• allowing Ipswich to distribute its required housing growth more widely into the rest of Suffolk

• encompassing the travel to work and sector development catchments that are much wider than Ipswich’s boundaries

25

• providing an integrated approach across Suffolk to tackle traffic congestion, particularly as Ipswich is at the confluence of the strategic A14/A12 corridor as well as experiencing normal town congestion

• using its strategic voice and capacity needed to lobby and invest in major schemes, such as improving the A14, and

• maximising the success of the University Campus Suffolk model, which relies on network of satellites linking research and innovation with new business and supply chain development.

The Ipswich concept recognises that more than one unitary in the county could place additional demands on partners and suggests joint partnership arrangements across the authorities may be needed. More than one unitary in Suffolk will pose a risk for the Children’s Trust and raise issues of:

• whether there would be one or two (or more) Directors forChildren’s Services in Suffolk, and

• how decision-making for children’s services could be taken across unitaries with different political priorities.

By involving partners in the Executive and the Community Boards, One Suffolk embeds partners at both strategic and local levels, reducing duplication and providing them with influence at all levels.

Neighbourhood EmpowermentThe Ipswich concept states that a number of smaller unitaries would better reflect a natural sense of place. It criticises One Suffolk for being “large and remote” and highlights that there is currently no Ipswich representative on the County Council’s Cabinet.

The One Suffolk model proposes a radical new authority for Suffolk within the existing county that people identify with most. It will enhance Ipswich’s unique importance to Suffolk as an economic and cultural hub. A portfolio holder for Ipswich will chair Ipswich’s Community Board and sit on the Suffolk Executive providing a strong voice for Ipswich and a direct link between strategic and local issues

The Borough highlights its understanding of its communities and that it is one of the National Empowering Councils. One Suffolk is a brand new council and will bring in and build on the best of current practice, in Ipswich and elsewhere.

Value for Money and Equity of ServicesThe Ipswich concept states it will continue existing practices of service reviews to deliver Value for Money and progress toward a commissioning model with an appropriate client function.

26

Feedback from consultation on the original Ipswich unitary bid included: “People don’t have an allegiance to the council, they just want good, cheap services”.

One Suffolk will be a radical new authority able to maximise Value for Money through large economies of scale, learning from existing radical efficiency programmes (for example our joint venture company, CSD and the commissioning based model underpinning Suffolk’s Securing the Future approach). Ipswich’s concept is clear that “the smaller the number of unitary authorities, the greater the likely overall savings will be”. We concur.

27

10)What level of support is there for a unitary Suffolk?

We have felt it important to share and discuss the One Suffolk concept with partners at this stage, as opposed to actively lobbying for support.

Partners, especially providers of key services and town and parish councils, have responded positively,

Stakeholders have indicated that any structure must address the following:

• facilitating partnership working and making it easier – many partners have real concerns about the resource required to work with more than one local authority on partnership projects such as the Local Area Agreement;

• having the capacity to deal with the big strategic issues (such as economic development) and invest in Suffolk;

• strengthening and supporting the key economic geographies in Suffolk, rather than fragmenting them;

• making sense to local people.

The spring 2005 Suffolk Speaks Survey (consultation partnership made up of local authorities, police and health) showed that whilst 34% of respondents in Suffolk identified with their local district/ borough council, 65% identified with the county of Suffolk. People also identify much more strongly with their immediate community/ neighbourhood/ village (68%).

Budget consultation surveys in Suffolk have made it clear that the level of Council Tax is a key concern to residents. One Suffolk is the most cost effective concept and local people will support the option that has a positive effect on the level of tax.

28

11)What support is there at present from Parish/Town Councils?

The One Suffolk concept was presented to the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) at a special meeting on 30th April. Feedback from this meeting was that the concept was well received and thought to be tackling the right issues.

Councillors have also fed back the outcomes of Town and Parish meetings they have attended where One Suffolk was discussed. The general messages are:

• One Suffolk will work if the level of devolution and investment in community boards is there;

• engagement with local councils is critical;

• local councils must have a strong role in any new structure.

During the consultation on the Ipswich unitary proposal, those Town and Parish councils who responded were overwhelmingly against the idea (76 out of 79), as was SALC.

However, Parish and Town Councils are mostly waiting for the consultation stage of the current process prior to openly supporting one specific concept.

29

12)What services will be provided through Public Service Villages and how will they be different from service provision in neighbour forums?

Public Service Villages (PSVs) will provide an important presence in Suffolk’s largest towns. They will provide shared local offices for public sector providers, reducing accommodation costs and encouraging shared solutions to local problems. The current plans can develop to include staff from Health, Police and the voluntary sector.

PSVs also provide an opportunity for regeneration. For example the PSV in Lowestoft has specially designed accommodation with laboratories for Cefas, DEFRA’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. This means that the 300 high quality Cefas jobs will remain in the town.

PSVs are major projects (Waveney c. £50m, Bury St Edmunds c. £23m). For smaller councils they are difficult to afford and represent considerable risk. The county council is a key partner in the current arrangements and provides the necessary scale.

One Suffolk would need a centre in each of these key towns and would continue investment in the PSVs.

The PSV for Bury St Edmunds has been designed as a centre where people can contact services, but this is not an essential feature of the model. Walk-in access to services will be provided in each market town. These access points could be purpose built one-stop shops, but more likely will be existing premises within Children’s’ Centres, GP surgeries, libraries, linking with other service providers where possible and sensible. They must suit the needs of the local community.

At these centres people will be able to access information about all of One Suffolk’s services, health, police and other services in Suffolk and other local information, and will be able to carry out a range of transactions They will be able to get one-to-one support. These services will also be available online via telephone.

30

13)How do you envisage Area Assemblies and LSPs working effectively?

In the One Suffolk concept there will be one Local Strategic Partnership, at the Suffolk level. The LSP will have an assembly that will provide mass stakeholder input. Community Boards (previously area assemblies) will play a key role in working with the County-Wide LSP to drive forward the Sustainable Community Strategy.

Community Boards will have health, police, voluntary and business partners co-opted onto them. They will be responsible for:

• a wide range of devolved services

• shaping local delivery of services

• identifying key priorities for an area, through the local charter

• area-based scrutiny of local services.

Our response to Question 15 outlines the role of Community Boards in more detail.

31

14)How do you envisage your economic relationship continuing with the Haven Gateway Partnership?

Suffolk has an ambitious long-term economic strategy - to create the most diverse and innovative economy in the East of England, at the same time reducing its carbon footprint by 60%. The success of the Haven Gateway Partnership is critical to delivering economic prosperity across Suffolk and surrounding areas.

A strong Suffolk voice is required to give the strategy coherence and reduce the north/south and rural/urban economic inequalities. One Suffolk will have the leadership, capacity and the powers to set the strategic direction for economic development, and the proposals in the sub-national review to enhance the role of local authorities in promoting economic development and regeneration will add force to this. One Suffolk would be a strong single partner for Suffolk in the Haven Gateway.

The draft East of England Plan has set challenging targets for the Haven Gateway:

• 49,680 new homes between 2006 and 2021; 35% of these affordable

• 50,000 new jobs – this is 15,000 more than is forecast to be delivered by organic growth, without interventions from local and national government.

A key focus for the Partnership will be to develop a long-term infrastructure plan to support growth and co-ordinate the delivery of infrastructure projects.

The One Suffolk model is critical to:

• maintaining the investment capacity to push forward key initiatives such as Innovation Martlesham, developing research capability which will create over 1,000 high value jobs to complement local housing development.

• developing, with Essex County Council, an effective economic strategy for the Haven Gateway that will influence East of England Development Agency’s investment decisions within the region; and

• developing a coherent sub-regional transport strategy and providing a strong lobbying voice regionally and nationally for key improvements such as the upgrading of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail line.

The future of the Haven Gateway Partnership and the future of the rest of Suffolk are intrinsically linked. One Suffolk would reinforce this linkage.

32

15)Can you clarify exactly how decision making will be devolved?

There is a wealth of untapped resource in Suffolk. Local people want to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives but the opportunities open to them are limited. The results of the 2007 Best Value User Satisfaction Survey in Suffolk highlighted that whilst 87% of respondents expressed some interest in being more involved in local decision making, only 29%agreed that they could influence decisions affecting their area, well below the average of 33%. The same proportion (29%) were satisfied with opportunities for participation in decision making.

One Suffolk will address this. Currently citizens can have a little bit of influence on a lot of things (consultation etc). What they are interested in is having a lot of influence on a more narrow range of things - this is what One Suffolk offers. It offers local people the opportunity to have real influence on those decisions that are devolved to their community board." Decision making will be devolved to the lowest level possible, consistent with equity and efficiency in delivery of services.

The Suffolk Council will set out what services will do in Suffolk – what outcomes will be delivered. This will be based on evidence – strategic needs assessment and feedback from the Community Boards. A strong strategic framework makes it easier to devolve more to local structures.

The Suffolk Council will provide cash incentives to Community Boards for meeting targets, such as increasing recycling rates.

There will be intervention to improve services where necessary and solve specific problems.

The Suffolk Council will:

• set out the priorities for Suffolk;

• negotiate with Community Boards to set clear targets for improved services in their area and provide funding to do this;

• have more clout with central government to ensure more money for Suffolk;

• provide the infrastructure (backbone) for One Suffolk, including IT, HR, property, employment;

• set the rules and limits for Community Boards;

• involve key partners in Executive decision-making.

The Suffolk Council will procure and deliver services. These efficient, countywide services can be varied to provide choices at local level –these will be bounded choices to balance efficiency and equity against making services meet local needs and preferences.

33

Community Boards will be made up of:

• Chair (in Ipswich and Lowestoft, the area portfolio holder)

• Suffolk councillors

• Town and parish councillors

• Partners – health, police, voluntary, business

Community Boards will:

• negotiate charters with One Suffolk that agree targets, priorities and funding for that area

• control substantial budgets (figures for Ipswich), and

• have the freedom to design services to meet these targets, reflecting local circumstances and preferences.

For example, for libraries Community Boards would be responsible for:

• selection of stock

• local activities, such as children’s groups, reading groups

• opening hours

• co-location of other public services, and

• using the library outside opening hours for their own purposes eg as an access point for information.

For leisure, Community Boards would be responsible for:

• agreeing service levels with local centres

• dealing with GP referrals, eg exercise or culture on prescription

• partnerships with schools.

For waste, Community Boards would:

• manage additional recycling centres

• promote local waste reduction and recycling.

Community Boards have a key role in scrutinising the delivery of services in their area and the impact of One Suffolk decisions in their area. Community Boards will be supported by a locality officer.

Community Boards in Ipswich and Lowestoft will have additional responsibilities for housing, road maintenance, buses, cycle paths and policies to reduce car use. In Bury St Edmunds the Community Board will

34

lead the delivery of the housing growth envisaged in the Regional Spatial Strategy, and will be able to access growth funding from Central Government.

Ipswich and Lowestoft will also have neighbourhood forums which will cover smaller areas - there will be five in Ipswich. These will identify local needs and task One Suffolk and partners to work together to resolve them.

35

16)Given the potentially large elector to councillor ratio envisaged, can you clarify how councillors might balance their time between strategic or scrutiny roles and representational responsibilities?

In light of further consideration and discussion with partners, we have increased the proposed number of councillors to 100-120. However, we believe that it is not the number of councillors or the ratio of electors to councillors which is the important determinant of performance but the calibre of councillors and their effective engagement in decision-making, scrutiny and local accountability.

Strong community leadership is essential to any council. One Suffolk will ensure access to the widest pool for councillors in Suffolk. We will offer excellent development opportunities to our councillors and continue to build upon the strong existing base of officer and ICT support.

One Suffolk’s locality arrangements, through Community Boards, provide the best basis for councillors to gather and represent the views of their communities to the executive.

Clear job descriptions and clear roles which distinguish between frontline and executive will help Councillors to manage their responsibilities.

One Suffolk Councillors will:

• have more of a say about what goes on in their area and the ability shape services to meet local need;

• a locality budget to spend with the local community on innovative projects;

• have a powerful scrutiny role at the local level (including Councillor Call for Action).

36

17)Can you explain how locality budgets will be administered by councillors?

There is an established mechanism for administering locality budgets in Suffolk. This has been running since 2001 and has worked well.

One Suffolk will build on the established mechanism, providing additional money for councillors to spend in their area. One Suffolk will have the capacity to allocate a total budget of £2.5m across the county.

Councillors will be required to involve local people in deciding how to spend the money, using participatory budgeting and other innovative approaches.

There will be a clear framework setting out what the money can and can’t be used for, with regular reporting of the outcomes achieved through the locality budgets.

37

18)How do you envisage Area Assemblies working alongside LSPs?

As outlined in the response to Q13, the will be one LSP at a Suffolk level. Each Community Board (previously Area Assemblies) will be represented on the LSP Assembly. This will provide an additional route for Community Boards to hold all key partners to account for service delivery in their area.

The Suffolk LSP will have a key role in holding the Suffolk Council and others to account for the delivery of the Sustainable Community Strategy.

38

19)Can you elaborate further on how the priorities for local charters will be agreed?

Charters are local plans which identify priorities, local responsibilities and set out what the local service offer will look like. They build on parish plans where available.

Priorities will be agreed through consultation with parishes – using parish plans, partners and community groups, and based on evidence. Each Community Board will have a locality officer, who will broker the agreement. Where parishes have existing parish plans these can be used as the basis for charters.

Charters will form the basis for negotiation with the Suffolk Council to set priorities for improvement and agree budgets.

39

20)Can you give further detail on the role to be played by parishes and town councils?

The role of town and parish councils will vary based on their capacity and aspirations.

Community Boards will include town and parish councillors and will provide support and investment to deal with very local issues.

Parish and town councils will have the opportunity to take additional roles including:

• reporting problems with road maintenance, fly tipping and street cleansing and verifying that improvements have been made

• influencing and agreeing parking policies

• highlighting anti-social behaviour, agreeing measures to tackle the problem and monitoring success

• shaping the approach to planning, as set out in our response to question 21

• identifying the need for community activities, parks and play areas and rights of way

• influencing the location of community recycling facilities.

40

21)Can you explain the level to which planning decisions would be delegated?

It is clear that Town and Parish Councils want a greater role in planning matters than is currently available to them.

With over 400 Town and Parish Councils in Suffolk, this presents a significant challenge. The practicality of supporting and operating a delegated planning service for Towns and Parishes is beyond One Suffolk’s capacity.

Therefore the proposed arrangement outlined below seeks to increase the role of Town and Parish Councils through direct representation on Development Control Committees and Local Planning Panels, whilst maintaining a model that can be delivered on a practical level.

Planning Development ControlMajor decisions (minerals, waste and strategic applications such as SnOasis and the Felixstowe Port expansion) will be made at the unitary council level.

The remainder will be dealt with in ten development control committees –one for each of Ipswich, Lowestoft and Bury St. Edmunds, and seven based on groupings of Community Boards (approx 60,000–80,000 population each). Co-opted representatives from the Community Boards (Town and Parish Councillors) will sit on each committee, with voting rights, along with unitary councillors.

Area committees will be able to use market town meeting facilities to improve public participation.

The Chairs of the development control committees will collectively agree such things as the triggers for committee determination and the frequency of meetings, to achieve consistency of approach.

Local Development DocumentsIt is proposed that a single Core Strategy be developed at unitary council level, with a direct relationship with the Sustainable Community Strategy, representing its spatial element. This can bring to bear a strong influence on developing regional spatial strategy (and vice versa).

Site Allocation Documents would be developed at a more local level by sub-dividing the unitary area to make them more manageable. First suggestions are the three larger towns and their immediate environs, with the remainder of the county divided north and south of the A14. These documents will be prepared by a panel consisting of co-opted representatives of Community Boards with unitary councillors, and formally adopted by the whole council.

Area Action Plans dealing with localised areas of change or regeneration will be prepared by a panel composed of co-opted representatives of appropriate Community Boards (much the same as above). Again they will be adopted by the whole council.

41

Super-Parish PlansIn order to underpin the whole approach of getting better input from local level we will encourage the production of “Super-Parish Plans” by each Community Board, setting out their medium term aspirations across a range of subjects. These would feed directly into the authority-wide Community Strategy, but also into the Site Allocation Documents and Area Action Plans.

Overall benefits

• Those functions which are best tackled at higher level are dealt with most effectively and efficiently.

• A strong voice can be presented at regional level

• There will be sufficient capacity to develop effective specialist teams on issues that are important to Suffolk - such as population projections, landscape or historic buildings.

• There will be a clear path for local involvement with local decision making in respect of planning applications and local development documents.

• More robust “super-parish plan” system, supported by skilled officers.

For Town and Parish Councils:

• Super-parish plans will directly influence the Sustainable Community Strategy, Area Action Plans and Site Allocations. They will also influence Development Control decisions

• Co-opted Community Board (Town & Parish Councillors) representatives will have a direct say on Development Control Committees and on Local Plan Panels preparing Area Action Plans and Site Allocation Documents.

42

22)Could you explain how existing District Council services will be delegated?

One Suffolk will first reconfigure existing District and County services to gain the maximum benefit from integration within a new unitary authority. Delegation will be determined within this context as follows:

• The strategy, policy development and procurement for most services will be undertaken at the unitary level

• A single back office infrastructure will include HR, finance, ICT, procurement, legal, audit, performance management, public access, revenues and benefits and transactional website services. An existing joint venture company provides a model for this approach.

Community Boards will have delegated authority to manage the operation of many of the remaining District services. The outline of this is as follows:

• Each Community Board will be expected to deliver a minimum standard of service

• Discretion will be available to use delegated budgets to go beyond the minimum standard to address local needs.

• A dedicated liaison officer will work with each Community Board to put together their annual plan

• High quality management information will be available to support the decision making process

• Some district services will be managed and operated mainly at the unitary level, for example, waste collection including the procurement and letting of contracts and the provision of recycling.

• A further level of delegation is proposed for Town and Parish Councils and will be based on a menu of choices to facilitate local requirements and capacity.