Warding Submission Volume 1. April East Suffolk

Transcription

1 East Suffolk Warding Submission Volume 1 April 2018 East Suffolk 0

2 1

3 Warding Pattern Submission by Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council for the proposed East Suffolk Council Electoral Area Introduction The proposed East Suffolk Council is situated along the entire east coast of the county of Suffolk and is bounded by the sea to the east, the Norfolk county boundary to the north and the estuary of the River Orwell and Harwich harbour mouth to the south. The two current districts (Suffolk Coastal District Council SCDC and Waveney District Council WDC ) have land borders with Ipswich Borough Council to the south and Mid Suffolk District Council to the west. The northern boundary borders Great Yarmouth Borough Council and South Norfolk District Council. East Suffolk has a coastline of 49 miles (79 km). The A12 runs north-south from the A14 to Lowestoft and is the main trunk road through the area. Furthermore, the eastern tip of the A14 arterial trunk road also runs through the south of the district to terminate at Felixstowe. There are rail links that run north and east from Ipswich connecting with the towns and villages across the area including Lowestoft and Felixstowe. The combined area of East Suffolk is approximately 487 square miles (1261 square km) and is home to approximately 242,500 people. Both districts have a higher proportion of older residents compared to the overall number for Suffolk. There is higher proportion of over 65s in Suffolk Coastal (26.9%) and in Waveney (26.5%) compared to the Suffolk average of 22.8% and the England average of 17.9%. The area is predominantly rural but includes some large towns such as Lowestoft and Felixstowe, an urban fringe development area east of Ipswich and an urban area in the vicinity of Woodbridge. The rural area has a number of market towns scattered across the area that act as small sub-centres for shops, basic services and facilities that are diverse in character. The towns and smaller village settlements reflect the history, size and location of east Suffolk. There is a strong identity with the character of the area which local residents associate with, combined with links to local industries that have developed over the years. There is a significant tourism thread that runs through the entire area which is particularly reflected in small coastal resorts. The two larger towns of Lowestoft and Felixstowe are well renowned nationally in the fishing, shipping and container industries. More recently the emerging energy industries around wind power and wind turbines have seen significant investment in the area. 2

4 The decision making process for this warding submission has gone through the various stages of development, including Member Working Group sessions, informal consultation with the local communities, LGBCE/MHCLG briefings, Member Programme Board and simultaneous Full Council meetings. Council Size At Full Council meetings of SCDC and WDC held on 23 November and 15 November 2017 respectively, approval was given to recommend a council size for the proposed East Suffolk Council of 55 Councillors, with the flexibility of plus or minus 2 should this be required as a consequence of the outcome of the boundary review. Local Member Involvement and Consultation A Member Working Group was set up on 17 January 2018 with the purpose of proposing a district warding structure for the new East Suffolk Council. The Working Group comprises 16 Members with an equal number drawn from Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils. The membership includes representatives from all political parties on the Council and is open for all councillors to attend. A timetable and work plan was prepared for the Electoral Review Member Working Group, with various milestones starting in January 2018 continuing through to 31 January It contains key dates including the preparation and submission of a warding structure to meet the submission deadline of 4 May 2018 set by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The Member Working Group has been closely involved with the development of the warding submission contained in this document and has met on 5 occasions to consider the merits or otherwise, of suggested warding options. The group from the inception recognised the importance of fostering community adhesion across the whole area, recognising that the existing council boundary between the two authorities would no longer exist and therefore taking advantage of bringing together communities within this area. The final recommended warding pattern reflects this approach. In order to seek local views and evidence of community ties to inform the councils warding proposals, an informal consultation was undertaken and the views of residents and various stakeholders including Town/Parish Councils was sought. The survey placed emphasis on community links and any joint working arrangements at a local level. The Member Working Group considered these responses and assessed their potential impact on any draft warding models being considered. 3

5 The debates at the Member Working Group have been thorough; detailed and robust arguments made and put forward. The warding structure has been adjusted during the course of discussions and investigation and has led to the production of 6 warding options, which have been refined at each stage to reach a final submission. There has been a general consensual approach to this task and Members have worked well together in this difficult and complex exercise, bearing in mind the significant change from 90 to 55 Councillors that involves major adjustments in the size of wards, arrangements and approach that Members will need to take in serving the new council and local community. Against this challenging context, Members have (through their local knowledge) put forward practical solutions that best reflect community interests and the criteria set by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). This warding pattern submission comprises of two volumes. The first being the primary document setting out the councils preferred warding pattern for East Suffolk and the supporting evidence for it. The second volume is a supporting document, that traces the background and discussions that have taken place on the various alternative options that have been put forward. It also demonstrates how Members reached their final conclusion. By virtue of their roles and background the Members have a good local knowledge of the district particularly those areas they represent. Therefore, the warding pattern proposal is very much a reflection of that local knowledge, including consideration of the local feedback obtained from the informal consultation responses. Parishes and Community Identity The entire area of East Suffolk is parished. Parishes are the embodiment of the local community, and, except in the major towns, form the basis for the polling districts which were the building blocks used for this review in order to create the new district wards. The area has a number of instances where parishes are grouped together for the purposes of delivering parish council functions. In all such cases, these district warding proposals have placed these parish groups together in the same ward. Changing polling districts is outside the scope of the review, although the LGBCE can make consequential changes to the internal wards of parishes, if it is considered necessary. Electoral Equality Given the constraints and the challenges, the warding review exercise has endeavoured to maintain good levels of electoral equality taking into account projected forecasts for the electorate over next five years. The area does have geographical limitations around its borders such as the sea, rivers and the Norfolk county boundary. There are three wards where the levels of electoral equality are marginally above the recommended tolerance of 10%. In each case, the equality is within 1% above this criterion. These are the proposed wards of Lothingland, Beccles and Martlesham & Purdis Farm. The justification exceeding the tolerance is outlined in the evidence document for each ward. The councils consider, that in terms of community identity and to provide effective and convenient local government, these slight variations to the electoral equality are justifiable and in accordance with LGBCE guidance. 4

6 Multi Member Ward approach Both councils operate an electoral system of whole elections every 4 years. There are no proposals to change this for the new East Suffolk Council, as this arrangement best reflects both the nature and structure of the area and has worked well to reflect community interests with a mixture of single and multi-member wards. The new warding proposal would create 8 Single Member wards, 16 two Member Wards and 5 three Member wards. The area of East Suffolk is a large geographic area, which is on the whole sparsely populated with pockets of urbanised areas. Therefore, the warding structure proposed is a balanced mix of multi and single member wards. Accordingly where it is possible, within the constraints, those wards that have the largest geographical areas are represented by two Members, which can help balance representation where individual wards themselves are diverse in nature. In some of the smaller urban areas which are highly populated, three member wards have been proposed. However irrespective of this, the Council, in looking to the future, will be exploring and developing new arrangements and approaches to assist Members in delivering their representational roles locally more effectively across these areas. This will include innovative electronic means of providing communication and the creation of a number of local Community Partnership Boards. New Ward Names In discussing proposed new names for the preferred warding pattern, the Working Group took account of the LGBCE guidance that any name should be short, distinct and identifiable in encapsulating the ward area. Members also put forward their own suggestions after taking local soundings in their communities. These were based on local knowledge; background to any historical links that were relevant and appropriate, whilst appreciating the subtleties of putting forward names that reflect local preferences. The names suggested at the meeting were deliberated on by councillors present and there was virtual consensus on the names proposed. Conclusion The warding proposal contained in this submission document best reflects the results of the Member Working Group, the input from the informal consultation with the local community whilst working with the geographical constraints of the nature of the district, in terms of boundaries and pockets of population. 5

7 PROPOSED WARDING STRUCTURE FOR EAST SUFFOLK 6

8 SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED WARDS Map Reference Ward Name No of Councillors Electorate Forecast (2023) Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 1 Lothingland % 2 Gunton & St Margarets % 2 Harbour & Normanston % 2 Oulton Broad % 2 Kirkley & Pakefield % 2 Carlton & Whitton % 3 Carlton Colville % 3 Worlingham % 3 Kessingland % 3 Beccles % 4 Blyth Estuary % 4 Leiston % 4 Sandlings % 4 Deben % 5 Wainford % 5 Blything % 5 Kelsale & Yoxford % 6 Saxmundham % 7 Framlingham % 7 Rendlesham & Wickham Market % 7 Carlford % 8 Fynn Valley % 8 Martlesham & Purdis Farm % 8 Orwell & Villages % 8 Kesgrave % 9 Melton % 9 Woodbridge % 10 Felixstowe South % 10 Felixstowe North % 7

9 8

10 Map No. 1 Proposed Ward Name Lothingland Lothingland is an area in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. It is bound by the River Yare and Breydon Water to the north and the River Waveney to the West and Oulton Broad to the South. This ward broadly covers the Suffolk area of Lothingland. Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7159 Forecast Electorate (2023) 8114 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 110.5% Proposed ward composition Corton Lound Somerleyton, Ashby and Herringfleet Blundeston Flixton East Camps Heath Oulton Centre and North, St Margarets Parkhill and West Evidence and rationale: Lothingland as a ward is restricted by the border with Norfolk to the north and west, the sea to the east and the town of Lowestoft to the south. The ward is a cohesive self contained area north of Lowestoft because of the geographical boundary constraints. Whilst this ward is marginally over the 10% tolerance, it can be argued that the mitigating factors above determine its composition. These northern parishes relate to Lowestoft as a Service Centre and the majority of students from this area attend the Benjamin Britten school for high school education. Blundeston and Flixton East (underlined above) are a grouped Parish Council and should be located in the same ward for this reason. 9

11 10

12 Map No. 2 Proposed Ward Name Gunton & St Margarets Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7436 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7491 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 102.1% Proposed ward composition Gunton St Margarets Centre and East Evidence and rationale This ward covers the north end of the town of Lowestoft, bordered to the east by the sea and to the west by the more rural ward of Lothingland. This district ward is part of Lowestoft Town Council which was created by Waveney District Council through an Order called The Waveney District Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2017 made on 25 January It is urban in nature and represents the northern community of Lowestoft, with strong transport links via the A47. 11

13 Map No. 2 Proposed Ward Name Harbour and Normanston Proposed number of Councillors 3 Current Electorate (2017) Forecast Electorate (2023) Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 104.7% Proposed ward composition Harbour North, Centre & South, Normanston North & South Evidence and rationale The Harbour area of Lowestoft is one of the most deprived in Suffolk. This district ward is part of Lowestoft Town Council which was created by Waveney District Council through an Order called The Waveney District Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2017 made on 25 January This ward is covered by the Lowestoft Business Improvement District (BID). This area is generally served by the Denes Academy for high school education and Lowestoft Sixth Form College. This ward covers the town centre and high street shopping area including the main transport hub for buses and trains. 12

14 Map No. 2 Proposed Ward Name Oulton Broad Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6413 Forecast Electorate (2023) 6834 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 93.1% Proposed ward composition Oulton Broad West and East, and Oulton South Whitton North Evidence and rationale Oulton Broad is a self-contained settlement with shops and other local facilities within the ward, including Oulton Broad Library serving all of this area. This district ward is part of Oulton Broad Parish Council which was created by Waveney District Council through an Order called The Waveney District Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2017 Made on 25 January 2017 A local Community Life Centre operates in the Whitton community area located in the heart of the estate as a focal point for the community and adjacent area with projects and various groups and activities for all ages. Bridge Road Surgery in Oulton Broad serves the majority of the patients in this area. 13

15 Map No. 2 Proposed Ward Name Kirkley & Pakefield Proposed number of Councillors 3 Current Electorate (2017) Forecast Electorate (2023) Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 100.5% Proposed ward composition Kirkley North & South and West Pakefield East, North & South Evidence and rationale This ward represents the main tourism area of Lowestoft including the south beach sea front, creating a natural boundary to the east. This district ward is part of Lowestoft Town Council which was created by Waveney District Council through an Order called The Waveney District Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2017 made on 25 January Kirkley and Pakefield have a joint community football club serving the community of all ages and abilities. The ward is served by two high schools drawing in children from this area. Comments received during the informal consultation stated that Kirkley and Pakefield should be kept together and the distinct area of Pakefield should be retained and not put with Carlton Colville. The ward shares a bus route and coastal path as well as shared Scout Halls and other groups. 14

16 Map No. 2 Proposed Ward Name Carlton & Whitton Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7693 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7745 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 105.5% Proposed ward composition Carlton East, North and West Whitton Centre, East & South Evidence and rationale This ward represents the south west corner of the town of Lowestoft, bordering the broads as a natural boundary to the north. It is an urban area of Lowestoft with natural community ties within the area. With the exception of Carlton North (CAN) which is part of the recently created Oulton Broad Parish Council, the remainder of this district ward is part of Lowestoft Town Council which was created by Waveney District Council through an Order called The Waveney District Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2017 made on 25 January

17 16

18 Map No. 3 Proposed Ward Name Carlton Colville Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7564 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7641 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 104.1% Proposed ward composition Carlton Colville North, East & South Gisleham North and South Mutford Evidence and rationale This ward is bordered to the north by Lowestoft, the east by the sea and the settlement of Kessingland. Students from this area either attend Pakefield or Sir John Lehman in Beccles. During the informal consultation, Parish Council comments included that Carlton Colville and Gisleham should be kept together Carlton Colville is a recognised growing community outside of Lowestoft. 17

19 Map No. 3 Proposed Ward Name Worlingham Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3758 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3804 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 103.7% Proposed ward composition Worlingham Barnby North Cove Evidence and rationale Worlingham ward has a natural northern boundary with the Norfolk County Boundary to the north and to the west with Beccles, which is a self-contained ward. The residents generally look towards Beccles for services; however they are a distinct community outside of the town. Students in this area attend one of 3 primary schools within the ward before progressing to Sir John Leman High School in Beccles. Worlingham is covered by a Local Area Coordinator who works with vulnerable individuals on a one to one basis. 18

20 Map No. 3 Proposed Ward Name Kessingland Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3481 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3607 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 98.3% Proposed ward composition Kessingland Evidence and rationale Kessingland is a self contained large village community bordered by the sea to the east and more rural areas to the remaining boundaries. The A12 provides a westerly border as well as transport links through the ward. The tourist industry provides a strong focus for this area supporting the local economy. Students in this area attend the local primary school before moving to Pakefield High School. The Longshore Surgeries cover Kessingland. 19

21 Map No. 3 Proposed Ward Name Beccles Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 8085 Forecast Electorate (2023) 8177 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 111.4% Proposed ward composition Beccles Evidence and rationale Beccles is a self contained market town on the boundary with Norfolk with a rural area bordering to the south. Beccles has a strong community identity and cohesion as a town which should be retained within a whole ward. Beccles is a large settlement which operates as a service centre for surrounding communities. It has a GP surgery (Beccles Medical Centre), an intermediate care facility serving the wider area at the hospital and a library. Beccles has a Citizens Advice office which again is used by a wider catchment area. It has a train station and is well served by buses. Beccles is covered by a Local Area Coordinator who works with vulnerable individuals on a one to one basis. Whilst this ward is marginally over the 10% tolerance, it can be argued that the mitigating factors above determine its composition as a complete ward. 20

22 21

23 Map No. 4 Proposed Ward Name Blyth Estuary The Blyth estuary is four miles long starting at Blythburgh and finishing at its mouth at Southwold Harbour. This ward contains parishes situated along the Blyth estuary. Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6581 Forecast Electorate (2023) 6935 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 94.5% Proposed ward composition Dunwich Reydon Southwold Walberswick Henstead with Hulver Street Covehithe Uggeshall South Cove Frostenden Rushmere Benacre Wrentham Wangford Henham Blythburgh Darsham Westleton Bramfield Thorington Evidence and rationale The A12 provides good transport links through the entire ward. The ward has a long easterly coastal boundary with the sea. The ward has many similarities in terms of community identity such as second homes, tourism, rural and coastal issues. There are two grouped Parish Councils within this ward (underlined above) Uggeshall, South Cove and Frostenden; Bramfield and Thorington. Southwold has a library along with a wide range of shops and services serving the area. A local group has recently purchased the old Hospital site from NHS Property Services for use as a multi-purpose site including employment, housing and community uses including potential relocation of the library. Students in this area attend one of 7 primary schools within the ward. Local residents suggest our proposals should aim to bring communities around the Blyth Estuary together to help foster a partnership to protect and develop Southwold Harbour and the estuary in general. The creation of this ward uses the river Blyth to bring communities together to help solve local issues and removes the current artificial district boundary which has been seen as a restrictive administrative border, a manned ferry exists across the river. Comments from Parish Councils during informal consultation stated that Southwold, Reydon, Wangford, Wrentham work together. Also links exist between Southwold, Walberswick, Henham and Reydon. Similar links between Reydon, Wangford and Wrentham, and also Bramfield and Walpole. 22

24 Map No. 4 Proposed Ward Name Leiston Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6121 Forecast Electorate (2023) 6798 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 92.6% Proposed ward composition Leiston Knodishall Middleton Theberton Aldringham cum Thorpe Evidence and rationale This ward is bound by the sea to the east. The existing Sizewell A and B sites and the Sizewell C development proposed by EDF Energy affect/impact upon all of the settlements in this area. Students in this area all attend Leiston, Coldfair Green or Middleton primary schools before progressing onto Alde Valley Academy in Leiston. All of the villages in this area are served by the Leiston Surgery. A new social prescribing project Leiston Links was launched in April 2018 and covers all of the areas in this proposed ward. Leiston is covered by one of the Council s place based initiatives Leiston Together. Leiston Together is a Coastal Communities Project and has an Economic Plan which references its role in relation to the surrounding settlements. Leiston has a Leisure Centre which serves the surrounding area and is being refurbished later this year. It also has a community run cinema and a range of shops and facilities. Leiston Parish Council during informal consultation expressed the view that the Leiston area should have two distinct Councillors. 23

25 Map No. 4 Proposed Ward Name Sandlings The Sandlings walk takes a route, generally inland, running parallel with the Suffolk Coast Path. Part of the Sandlings walk passes through this ward. Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3685 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3760 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 102.5% Proposed ward composition Aldeburgh Friston Iken Sudbourne Orford Gedgrave Snape Evidence and rationale This ward is bound by the sea to the east Orford and Gedgrave are a grouped Parish Council. Aldeburgh has a library and a community run cinema along with a wide range of other shops and services which make it a focal point for the surrounding villages. The parishes within this ward share similar issues such as coastal protection, flooding and the rural environment. The Sandlings coastal walk runs through the ward. Tourism, second homes and the arts are all common themes bringing these communities together as a ward. 24

26 Map No. 4 Proposed Ward Name Deben The river Ore runs through the East of this ward and the river Deben provides the natural boundary between this ward and the wards of Felixstowe North and Orwell & Villages. Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3678 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3829 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 104.3% Proposed ward composition Alderton Ramsholt Bawdsey Boyton Bromeswell Eyke Hollesley Shottisham Sutton Sutton Heath Butley Capel St Andrew Wantisden Chillesford Evidence and rationale This is a predominantly rural ward, with natural boundaries surrounding it to the west is the River Deben, a major river for the area, to the east is the sea and to the north east is the Butley River. To the west, it is bordered by the more urban areas of Woodbridge and Melton. The ward is made up of village settlements within areas of forest and heathland. There is a grouped Parish Council of Butley, Capel St Andrew and Wantisden parishes (underlined above). All of these villages are covered by the Peninsula Practice which has GP surgeries in Alderton, Orford and Hollesley. The Village Voice magazine covers four of the villages in this area. Response from the informal consultation process suggested clear links between Bromeswell and Sutton Heath 25

27 26

28 Map No. 5 Proposed Ward Name Wainford From 1935 until 1948 the Registration District of Wainford covered the majority of this ward. The Wainford name is still associated with this area. Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7014 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7363 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 100.3% Proposed ward composition Bungay South Elmham All Saints South Elmham St Michael South Elmham St Peter Homersfield Ilketshall St Andrew Ilketshall St John Ilketshall St Lawrence Ilketshall St Margaret Flixton West South Elmham St Cross South Elmham St Margaret South Elmham St James Barsham Shipmeadow Mettingham Redisham Ringsfield Rumburgh Ellough Sotterley Shadingfield Willingham St Mary Weston Evidence and rationale This ward is bordered by the Norfolk county boundary and the Mid Suffolk District boundary to the north and west. It is a less densely populated rural area, with natural links towards Bungay. There are a number of grouped Parish Councils within this ward (underlined above): South Elmham All Saints, South Elmham St Michael and South Elmham St Peter; Flixton West, South Elmham St Cross and South Elmham St Margaret; Barsham and Shipmeadow; Ellough, Sotterley, Shadingfield and Willingham St Mary. Bungay is a service centre for a range of villages covered by this ward. It has a Library, a Citizens Advice office and a Medical Practice (Bungay Medical Centre). The majority of students in this area attend Bungay Primary although students may attend one of 6 other primary schools depending on their village. They move on to either Bungay or Sir John Leman high schools. Parish Council comments state there are links between Shipmeadow & Barsham And also links between Shadingfield, Willingham St Mary s and Sotterley 27

29 Map No. 5 Proposed Ward Name Blything Blything was the largest of Suffolk s 21 hundreds. All parishes within this ward were contained within the Blything Hundred. Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6525 Forecast Electorate (2023) 6928 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 94.4% Description of proposed ward composition Blyford Sotherton Holton Westhall Spexhall Halesworth Wissett Brampton with Stoven Wenhaston with Mells Evidence and rationale Halesworth is seen as a natural service centre for all of these communities; people from these parishes tend to use Halesworth for their local services. The creation of this ward removes the current artificial district boundary which has been seen as a restrictive administrative border, now enabling parishes to be naturally warded together. There is a grouped Parish Council within this ward (underlined above): Blyford and Sotherton. Students in this area attend one of 4 primary schools within the area. Halesworth has a well-used library, along with a wide range of other shops and services that are used by people living in the town and surrounding villages within the ward. There are train stations at both Halesworth and Brampton (which is a request stop) providing transport links. The Cutlers Hill Surgery serves many of the villages in this area and there is also a well-established Carer Support project and a number of other community led health and wellbeing projects. Parish Council comments during the informal consultation were that there are strong links between Halesworth and Holton. 28

30 Map No. 5 Proposed Ward Name Kelsale & Yoxford Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3245 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3322 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 90.5% Description of proposed ward composition Cratfield Kelsale Cum Carlton Yoxford Heveningham Huntingfield Peasenhall Sibton Sweffling Ubbeston Cransford Cookley Walpole Linstead Magna Linstead Parva Chediston Evidence and rationale This ward is bound by a westerly border with Mid Suffolk District Council and a southern boundary with the town of Saxmundham, providing constraints geographically. This ward brings together a group of small villages to retain their rural community identity. There are two grouped Parish Councils within this ward (underlined above): Cookley and Walpole; Linstead Magna, Linstead Parva and Chediston. In a wider context of what is a large rural area, residents travel to Saxmundham Health Centre and Leiston Surgery, with Framlingham Surgery also seeing some patients from this area. Parish Council and residents comments during the informal consultation suggest a number of links between parishes and communities within this ward: Sweffling and Cransford; Ubbeston, Huntingfield and Heveningham; Ubbeston and Heveningham; Chediston, Cookley and Cratfield. 29

31 30

32 Map No. 6 Proposed Ward Name Saxmundham Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3212 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3504 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 95.5% Description of proposed ward composition Saxmundham Evidence and rationale The ward of Saxmundham is a self contained market town within a rural area. Saxmundham has a strong community identity and cohesion as a town which should be retained within a whole ward. Saxmundham is a settlement which operates as a service centre for surrounding communities. Students in this area attend the local Saxmundham primary school before progressing to Alde Valley Academy in Leiston. Saxmundham has its own Health Centre, a library and a train station which makes a focal point for people working in locations between Lowestoft and Ipswich. 31

33 32

34 Map No. 7 Proposed Ward Name Framlingham Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6293 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7052 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 96.1% Description of proposed ward composition Framlingham Dennington Badingham Brandeston Bruisyard Cransford Sweffling Great Glemham Saxtead Parham Earl Soham Easton, Monewden Hoo Cretingham Letheringham Kettleburgh Rendham Evidence and rationale This ward is bordered to the west by Mid Suffolk District Council, creating a geographical constraint. Framlingham is seen as a natural service centre for all of these communities; people from these parishes tend to use Framlingham for their local services. This ward contains a grouped Parish Council (underlined above): Monewden, Hoo and Cretingham. The majority of students in this area attend Thomas Mills High School in Framlingham. This area is an almost exact match for the catchment area for the Framlingham GP Surgery. Framlingham has a library which serves this wider community. Suggestions from residents and Parish Councils in the informal consultation exercise express clear links between Letheringham, Monewden, Hoo, Kettleburgh and Charsfield. 33

35 Map No. 7 Proposed Ward Name Rendlesham & Wickham Market Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7175 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7418 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 101.1% Description of proposed ward composition Rendlesham Wickham Market Pettistree Campsea Ashe Ufford Sternfield Benhall Evidence and rationale Little Glemham Tunstall Blaxhall Hacheston Marlesford Stratford St Andrew Farnham This ward shares a strong transport link of the A12 through the area. Although it has common rural issues, we also recognise this is a diverse ward but one that could operate well as a a two member ward so that interests can be represented in a balanced way. There is a shared GP practice across the area and a train station at Campsea Ashe serving these parishes. This ward contains the following grouped Parish Councils: Sternfield and Benhall; Stratford St Andrew and Farnham. Students in this area attend a number of primary schools within the area before progressing further afield to Thomas Mills (Framlingham), Alde Valley Academy (Leiston) or Farlingaye (Woodbridge). A number of groups in Wickham Market are used by residents from the other communities in this area e.g. the Gardening Club, Community Club and Family Carers Group. Informal consultation responses suggest strong links between these communities: Wickham Market and Ufford; Hacheston and Campsea Ashe; Hacheston and Marlesford; Wickham Market and Pettistree; Blaxhall and Hacheston. 34

36 Map No. 7 Proposed Ward Name Carlford Carlford was one of Suffolk s 21 Hundreds. The majority of the parishes within this ward were part of the Carlford Hundred. Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3575 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3754 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 102.3% Description of proposed ward composition Grundisburgh Culpho Otley Clopton Witnesham Swilland Charsfield Dallinghoo Debach Burgh Evidence and rationale This ward has a westerly boundary with Mid Suffolk District Council, providing a geographical constraint. This ward is north of the Ipswich Fringe, ensuring we have kept areas together in this ward with a strong rural identity. There are two grouped Parish Councils in this ward (underlined above): Grundisburgh and Culpho; Witnesham and Swilland. The Deben Group GP surgery at Otley covers the majority of these villages. Witnesham and Grundisburgh have strong links through having a joint choir and newsletter. 35

37 36

38 Map No. 8 Proposed Ward Name Fynn Valley The River Fynn passes through a number of the parishes within this ward. The general area is known as The Fynn Valley. Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6597 Forecast Electorate (2023) 6841 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 93.2% Description of proposed ward composition Rushmere St Andrew Tuddenham St Martin Westerfield Playford Great Bealings Little Bealings Evidence and rationale This ward borders Ipswich and is part of the Ipswich fringe. It also has a border with Mid Suffolk District Council. Fynn Valley is identified within the Ipswich Fringe area of the Local Plan and fall within the Ipswich Policy area, many of the parishes look towards Ipswich for their services. 37

39 Map No. 8 Proposed Ward Name Martlesham & Purdis Farm Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 6610 Forecast Electorate (2023) 8139 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 110.9% Description of proposed ward composition Martlesham (MA) Martlesham Heath (MB) Purdis Farm Foxhall Brightwell Waldringfield Evidence and rationale The river Deben provides a natural boundary to the east, with urban areas of Kesgrave and Ipswich Borough Council bordering to the west. The majority of these parishes fall within the Ipswich Policy area of the Local Plan and look towards Ipswich for their services. Part of Martlesham (MAY) has been kept with Kesgrave as this small area identifies strongly with Kesgrave and not within this ward - the access to this part of Martlesham is from the same main road running through the north of ward. This area of Martlesham is also in a different constituency (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich), suggesting stronger links with Kesgrave towards Ipswich. Martlesham North (MAX) has been kept with Woodbridge as this area of Martlesham more readily identifies with Woodbridge rather than the village of Martlesham, due to its location and access routes. A separate piece of work looking at the Neighbourhood Plan for the area undertook a consultation with residents in this part of Martlesham where the majority stated they identified as being part of Woodbridge, both physically in terms of location and where they relate to for local services. There is a grouped Parish Councils within this ward as follows: Purdis Farm, Foxhall and Brightwell. The majority of students in this area attend Kesgrave High School. This area is covered by The Birches GP practice in Kesgrave and Martlesham Heath Surgery. This area includes the proposed development at Adastral Park in Martlesham/Brightwell. During the informal consultation, Purdis Farm Parish Council stated that it does not want to be linked to Felixstowe due to completely differing community make ups. 38

40 Map No. 8 Proposed Ward Name Orwell & Villages The river Orwell provides a natural border to the South of this ward. Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7150 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7786 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 106.1% Description of proposed ward composition Trimley St Mary Trimley St Martin Bucklesham Nacton Levington Stratton Hall Newbourne Hemley Falkenham Kirton Evidence and rationale This ward has a natural boundary, described as (part of) the Felixstowe Peninsula, which is bounded by the River Orwell to the south west and the River Deben to the north west surrounding the area with geographical constraints, including Felixstowe town to the south east. The A14 provides key transport links to all of the villages in this ward. The majority of this ward is included in the Felixstowe Peninsula Area Action Plan. All communities are predominantly rural villages, with slightly more urban areas in Trimley, however this is a two member ward which will help to balance out representation. There are two grouped Parish Councils within this ward (underlined above): Levington and Stratton Hall; Falkenham and Kirton. These communities are covered by the Howard House Surgery, Grove Road Medical Practice or Haven Health all in Felixstowe. Several comments from informal consultation responses argue to keep Kirton, Levington and Bucklesham Parishes together as they have common interests. Furthermore other informal consultation comments suggest links between Falkenham, Levington, Stratton Hall, Hemley and Nacton. 39

41 Map No. 8 Proposed Ward Name Kesgrave Proposed number of Councillors 3 Current Electorate (2017) Forecast Electorate (2023) Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 95.7% Description of proposed ward composition Kesgrave Martlesham West (MAY) Evidence and rationale Kesgrave is a self-contained town, an urban area to the east of Ipswich and bordering with Martlesham. Part of Martlesham (MAY) has been kept with Kesgrave as this small area identifies strongly with Kesgrave - the access to this part of Martlesham is from the same main road running through the north of ward. This area of Martlesham is also in a different constituency (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich), suggesting stronger links with Kesgrave towards Ipswich. All areas of this ward fall within the Ipswich Policy area of the Local Plan and look towards Ipswich for many of their services. The Birches in Kesgrave is the main GP surgery. It has three primary schools serving this area and Kesgrave High School to which all students in this ward would naturally attend. Kesgrave has a library which serves the community along with local shops and other services within its centre, such as local Scout groups and playgroups. 40

42 41

43 Map No. 9 Proposed Ward Name Melton Proposed number of Councillors 1 Current Electorate (2017) 3264 Forecast Electorate (2023) 3636 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 99.1% Description of proposed ward composition Melton Evidence and rationale Melton is a distinct large village settlement with local amenities such as a train station, church, shops and primary school. It is on the outskirts of the urban area of Woodbridge. There is a community magazine called the Melton Messenger produced jointly by the Parish Council and St Andrews Church for people who live and work in Melton. 42

44 Map No. 9 Proposed Ward Name Woodbridge Proposed number of Councillors 2 Current Electorate (2017) 7041 Forecast Electorate (2023) 7382 Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 100.6% Proposed ward composition Woodbridge Martlesham North (MAX) Bredfield Boulge Hasketon Evidence and rationale Woodbridge is a market town serving the local area with a wide selection of shopping facilities, recreational facilities and local amenities. Martlesham North (MAX) has been kept with Woodbridge as this area of Martlesham more readily identifies with Woodbridge rather than the village of Martlesham, due to its location and access routes. A separate piece of work looking at the Neighbourhood Plan for the area undertook a consultation with residents in this part of Martlesham where the majority stated they identified as being part of Woodbridge, both physically in terms of location and where they relate to for local services. The more rural parishes of Bredfield, Boulge and Hasketon have been warded with Woodbridge as their strongest identity is with Woodbridge and they make up a good mix of urban and rural spread, with these parishes naturally looking to Woodbridge for all of their local needs including Framfield House and Little St Johns GP Surgeries, both in Woodbridge, covering this area. Woodbridge Library is one of many facilities in this well used market town. Woodbridge has a train station and a cinema along with a wide range of other services and facilities serving these communities. 43

45 44

46 Map No. 10 Proposed Ward Name Felixstowe South Proposed number of Councillors 3 Current Electorate (2017) 9982 Forecast Electorate (2023) Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 93.5% Proposed ward composition Felixstowe South Felixstowe West Evidence and rationale The ward is bounded by the sea and the mouth of the river Orwell to the south east and south west. This ward represents the southern part of the town of Felixstowe. The proposal to pair South and West Felixstowe together to form a ward makes sense geographically as well as within the community, using the railway line and the Town Centre as a natural break point. It reflects to a considerable degree the demographic, social and commercial makeup of Felixstowe, keeping the Town Centre, Resort and Port areas in this southern ward. 45

47 Map No. 10 Proposed Ward Name Felixstowe North Proposed number of Councillors 3 Current Electorate (2017) 8888 Forecast Electorate (2023) Forecast Electorate Variation (2023) 95.9% Proposed ward composition Felixstowe East Felixstowe Walton Felixstowe Allenby Evidence and rationale This ward is bounded by the sea to the east and the river Deben to the north. This ward represents the northern part of the town. One resident stressed within the informal consultation that Walton should be kept in Felixstowe. The proposal to pair East and North Felixstowe together to form a ward makes sense geographically as well as within the community using the High Road/High Street as a natural linkage. It reflects to a considerable degree the demographic, social and commercial makeup of Felixstowe, keeping the predominantly residential area of north Felixstowe together. 46

48 East Suffolk Warding Submission Volume 2 (Background information) April 2018 East Suffolk 1

49 Contents Introduction... 3 Timetable for Warding Submission development... 3 MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 17 JANUARY INFORMAL CONSULTATION copy of survey questions... 7 FORECAST SUMMARY TO REPORT TO MEMBER WORKING GROUP 13 FEBRUARY MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 13 FEBRUARY REPORT TO MEMBER WORKING GROUP 19 MARCH MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 19 MARCH REPORT TO MEMBER WORKING GROUP 3 APRIL EXTRACT FROM MEMBER PROGRAMME BOARD MINUTES 16 April REPORT TO MEMBER WORKING GROUP 18 APRIL MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 18 APRIL CONSULTATION FINDINGS General Comments Summary Felixstowe Wards alternative option Martlesham Warding Proposal Options 1 to

50 Introduction This document is a supporting document for the East Suffolk Warding Submission Volume 1. The contents of this document show the process of developing a warding proposal for the new Council area of East Suffolk. The process began in January 2018 with the formation of a Member Working Group, made up of equal representation of Councillors from both Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council, politically balanced, and open for all Councillors to attend. Timetable for Warding Submission development Event Subject Date Member Working Group meeting Initial meeting 17 January Informal Consultation began Town/Parish Councils and other 22 January 2018 stakeholders MHCLG Forecast Submission Submission of five year Electorate 31 January 2018 deadline Forecasts Member Working Group meeting 2 Warding Options 1, 2 and 3 considered 13 February 2018 Member Working Group meeting Warding Option 4 considered 19 March MHCLG/LGBCE Briefing Briefing for Councillors 3 April 2018 Option 5 considered Member Programme Board Warding Option 6 (final submission) 16 April 2018 considered Member Working Group meeting Ward Naming options considered 18 April Simultaneous Full Council Final Submission document considered 30 April 2018 MHCLG Warding submission deadline Submission of proposal to MHCLG 4 May

51 MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 17 JANUARY 2018 SUFFOLK COASTAL AND WAVENEY DISTRICT COUNCILS ONE COUNCIL PROGRAMME MEMBER WORKING GROUP DATE: 17/01/18 TIME: 2:00pm LOCATION: G01 Claud Castleton Room, Riverside NOTES/ACTIONS FROM MEETING Present: Cllr Mark Bee (Chair) Cllr Stephen Ardley Cllr Michael Ladd Cllr Simon Woods Cllr Alison Cackett Cllr Keith Patience Cllr Graham Elliot Tim Willis (Electoral Services) ELECTORAL REVIEW MEMBER WORKING GROUP Cliff Robinson (Association of Electoral Administrators) 1. Welcome/Introduction Cllr Geoff Holdcroft Cllr Nicky Yeo Cllr Andy Smith Cllr Stephen Burroughes Cllr Mark Newton Cllr John Fisher Nick Khan (Lead Officer) Karen Last (Electoral Services) 2. Terms of Reference Purpose and objectives of the group were discussed. Reports in to Member Programme Board. No decision making powers. Open to all members to attend. Information uploaded to Fred. 3. Group Photo 4. Forward meeting schedule/key dates Timetable to be amended to include dates to take report to MPB and Full Council. 5. Risks LGBCE do not complete their work in time to meet Nick Khan 4

52 our deadline resulting in elections on County Divisions. LGBCE are working to a strict deadline, it is unlikely that the LGBCE would cause delays. MHCLG do not meet deadlines. If resources are diverted (Brexit, Snap election etc) we will not meet the deadline. Parliamentary process introduces delays. We are building a network of support to try to mitigate this risk. We are working closely with all three of the East Suffolk MPs who are supportive of the process. All Suffolk MPs were at the meeting with the SoS. Issues with the merger in the West could have an impact on the East. Internal divisions across the two councils. Our case would be stronger if we can give the LGBCE a unified warding proposal. Compromises would have to be made for the greater good. Risk register to be created/monitored/updated 6. Any changes to MWG work programme Nick Khan 7. Items for next MWG/reporting to MPB Warding Proposals Officers will work up warding proposals which will be circulated in advance of and discussed at the next MWG meeting. There is an opportunity to look at community cohesion which spans the current district boundary. Although the council size has not been officially accepted, the proposals will be worked out on this basis. Cliff Robinson 8. Any other business Informal consultation Survey Monkey A survey has been created. Stakeholders will be given an opportunity to identify community ties and parishes that naturally go together. It was agreed that the closing date of the survey should be extended to ensure that it was live for a four week period which takes account of the town/parish meeting cycle. Nick Khan 5

53 The wording should be changed to clarify the process for parish councils. The re-warding process will not mean that parish councils will have to merge. The link to the map should be changed to a single East Suffolk map. Paper submissions would be accepted and included in the consultation and the survey will be pushed through comms with the appropriate press releases etc. An amended version will be sent to the group on 18/01/2018 with comments back 19/01/18 am. The final version will be sent out to stakeholders by close of play on 19/01/18. Electorate forecasting The LGBCE have provided a spreadsheet proforma to forecast electorate up until The spreadsheet includes functionality which applies ONS trends to our actual electorate figures. The electorate figures have been entered which produces a standardised 2023 electorate which does not take account of local developments. Planning policy have identified areas of almost certain development and these figures have been added to the spreadsheet to provide a revised 2023 forecast. There is no scope for adjustments other than local developments. The spreadsheet for each authority and a simplified summary of each spreadsheet will be sent to all members of the group for review. Nick Khan, Mark Bee and Ray Herring to send the forecast figures to LGBCE/MHCLG to meet the deadline of 31/01/18. Nick Khan Nick Khan Nick Khan Karen Last Nick Khan / Mark Bee / Ray Herring Next meeting: 13/02/18-10:00am East Suffolk House (Alde) 6

54 INFORMAL CONSULTATION copy of survey questions 1. What best describes you and your interest in this review? Local resident Local Business Residents Group / Community Group Parish/Town Councillor District Councillor County Councillor Other (please specify) 2. Which parish are you located in? 3. Which parish(es) are you representing? (for councillors only) 4. Are there any links or natural boundaries between your area or parish and other parishes in East Suffolk which should be taken into consideration when forming the new ward map for East Suffolk? Please give details of what the link is and the location Community groups / activities (eg playgroups /sports activities) Shared community facilities (eg village hall / church) Local geography (eg rivers/ transport links) Historic Links (eg community identity with other parishes) Other 5. Thinking about your area or parish, if residents need to travel to access services where would they most likely go? Shops Schools GP surgeries Other services 6. Do you have any suggestions of which parishes naturally link together in your area? 7. Are there any other factors you would like to be considered when forming a new district ward map for East Suffolk? 8. If you are happy to be contacted regarding the Electoral Review process or be notified for future consultations, please enter your name and address. 7

55 FORECAST SUMMARY TO 2023 Electorate Forecasts are based on standard ONS trending statistics unless Planning Applications for additional housing have been approved/already under development in the area and what is likely to be built by Local Plan allocations are not taken into account for the purposes of this exercise. Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons CURRENT SUFFOLK COASTAL POLLING DISTRICTS(ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY PARISH) A ALDEBURGH New Homes approved/under development ACX ALDERTON New Homes approved/under development ACY RAMSHOLT AD ALDRINGHAM CUM THORPE B BADINGHAM New Homes approved/under development BAX BAWDSEY New Homes approved/under development BCX GREAT BEALINGS BCY LITTLE BEALINGS BDX BENHALL BDY STERNFIELD BE BLAXHALL BF BLYTHBURGH New Homes approved/under development BG BOYTON BH BRAMFIELD BI BRANDESTON BJX BREDFIELD BJY BOULGE BKX BROMESWELL BL BRUISYARD BMX BUCKLESHAM BMY BRIGHTWELL BNX BUTLEY BNY CAPEL ST ANDREW BNZ WANTISDEN C CAMPSEA ASHE CA CHARSFIELD New Homes approved/under development CB CHEDISTON CC CHILLESFORD New Homes approved/under development CD CLOPTON

56 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons CE COOKLEY CF CRANSFORD CGX CRATFIELD CH CRETINGHAM DAX DALLINGHOO DAY DEBACH DB DARSHAM New Homes approved/under development DCX DENNINGTON DDX DUNWICH E EARL SOHAM EA EASTON EB EYKE F FELIXSTOWE FA FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FB FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FBX FELIXSTOWE FC FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FD FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FE FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FF FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FG FELIXSTOWE FH FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FI FELIXSTOWE New Homes approved/under development FJ FELIXSTOWE FK FELIXSTOWE FKX FELIXSTOWE FL FOXHALL New Homes approved/under development FM FRAMLINGHAM New Homes approved/under development FO FRISTON G GREAT GLEMHAM GA LITTLE GLEMHAM GBX GRUNDISBURGH New Homes approved/under development 9

57 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons GBY CULPHO H HACHESTON HAX HASKETON HAY BURGH HBX HEVENINGHAM HBY UBBESTON HCX HOLLESLEY New Homes approved/under development HD HUNTINGFIELD I IKEN K KELSALE CUM CARLTON KAX KESGRAVE Major development in Kesgrave has come to an end KBX KESGRAVE KCX KESGRAVE Major development in Kesgrave has come to an end KDX KESGRAVE Major development in Kesgrave has come to an end KE KETTLEBURGH KFX KIRTON New Homes approved/under development KFY FALKENHAM KH KNODISHALL L LEISTON New Homes approved/under development LA LEISTON New Homes approved/under development LC LETHERINGHAM LDX LEVINGTON LDY STRATTON HALL LEX LINSTEAD MAGNA LEY LINSTEAD PARVA M MARLESFORD MA MARTLESHAM New Homes approved/under development MAX MARTLESHAM MAY MARTLESHAM MB MARTLESHAM No major development planned for this area MC MELTON New Homes approved/under development ME MIDDLETON MFX MONEWDEN

58 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons MFY HOO N NACTON NAX NEWBOURNE NAY HEMLEY OAX ORFORD OAY GEDGRAVE OB OTLEY New Homes approved/under development P PARHAM PA PEASENHALL New Homes approved/under development PB PETTISTREE PC PLAYFORD PD PURDIS FARM New Homes approved/under development R RENDHAM RA RENDLESHAM RB RUSHMERE ST ANDREW RC RUSHMERE ST ANDREW New Homes approved/under development S SAXMUNDHAM New Homes approved/under development SA SAXTEAD SB SHOTTISHAM SC SIBTON New Homes approved/under development SD SNAPE New Homes approved/under development SEX STRATFORD ST ANDREW SEY FARNHAM SF SUDBOURNE SG SUTTON SGY SUTTON HEATH SH SWEFFLING T THEBERTON TA THORINGTON TB TRIMLEY ST MARTIN New Homes approved/under development TC TRIMLEY ST MARY New Homes approved/under development TE TUDDENHAM ST MARTIN

59 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons TF TUNSTALL New Homes approved/under development U UFFORD New Homes approved/under development W WALBERSWICK WA WALDRINGFIELD WB WALPOLE WC WENHASTON WITH MELLS New Homes approved/under development WD WESTERFIELD New Homes approved/under development WE WESTLETON WF WICKHAM MARKET New Homes approved/under development WGX WITNESHAM New Homes approved/under development WGY SWILLAND WH WOODBRIDGE No major development planned for this area WI WOODBRIDGE WJ WOODBRIDGE New Homes approved/under development WK WOODBRIDGE New Homes approved/under development Y YOXFORD CURRENT WAVENEY POLLING DISTRICTS (ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY PARISH) BCE BECCLES BCO BECCLES New Homes approved/under development BDA BECCLES BER BECCLES BFD BLYFORD BHO HOLTON BSO SOTHERTON BSP SPEXHALL BWA WANGFORD WITH HENHAM BWE WESTHALL BYC BUNGAY New Homes approved/under development BYE BUNGAY New Homes approved/under development BYN BUNGAY BYS BUNGAY New Homes 12

60 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons approved/under development CAE LOWESTOFT CAN OULTON BROAD CAW LOWESTOFT No major development planned in this area CCE CARLTON COLVILLE CCN CARLTON COLVILLE No major development planned in this area CCS CARLTON COLVILLE New Homes approved/under development GCC CORTON New Homes approved/under development GCG LOWESTOFT No major development planned in this area HAN HALESWORTH New Homes approved/under development HAS HALESWORTH New Homes approved/under development HBC LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development HBN LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development HBS LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development KGN GISLEHAM KGS GISLEHAM KKS KESSINGLAND New Homes approved/under development KLN LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development KLS LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development KLW LOWESTOFT LBL BLUNDESTON New Homes approved/under development LCH OULTON LFL FLIXTON EAST LLO LOUND LSA SOMERLEYTON ASHBY AND HERRINGFLEET NMN LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development NMS LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development OTC OULTON New Homes 13

61 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons approved/under development OTN OULTON New Homes approved/under development OTS OULTON BROAD No major development planned in this area OUE OULTON BROAD New Homes approved/under development OUW OULTON BROAD New Homes approved/under development PFE LOWESTOFT PFN LOWESTOFT PFS LOWESTOFT No major development planned in this area SHR REYDON New Homes approved/under development SHS SOUTHWOLD New Homes approved/under development SMC LOWESTOFT New Homes approved/under development SME LOWESTOFT SMP OULTON SMW LOWESTOFT TAS ALL SAINTS AND ST NICHOLAS SOUTH ELMHAM TFL FLIXTON WEST THF HOMERSFIELD TIA ILKETSHALL ST ANDREW TIJ ILKETSHALL ST JOHN TIL ILKETSHALL ST LAWRENCE TMA SOUTH ELMHAM ST MARGARET TMI SOUTH ELMHAM ST MICHAEL TPE SOUTH ELMHAM ST PETER TRU RUMBURGH TSC SOUTH ELMHAM ST CROSS TSJ SOUTH ELMHAM ST JAMES TSM SOUTH ELMHAM ST MARGARET TWI WISSETT

62 Polling District Parish Electorate 2017 Electorate Forecast 2023 Reasons WFB BARSHAM WFE ELLOUGH WFH METTINGHAM WFM MUTFORD WFN REDISHAM WFR RINGSFIELD WFS SHADINGFIELD WFT SHIPMEADOW WFU SOTTERLEY WFV WESTON WFW WILLINGHAM ST MARY WHC LOWESTOFT WHE LOWESTOFT WHN OULTON BROAD New Homes approved/under development WHS LOWESTOFT WLB BARNBY WLN NORTH COVE WLW WORLINGHAM WRA BENACRE WRB BRAMPTON WITH STOVEN WRC COVEHITHE WRF FROSTENDEN WRH HENSTEAD WITH HULVER STREET WRR RUSHMERE WRS SOUTH COVE WRU UGGESHALL WRW WRENTHAM New Homes approved/under development 15

63 REPORT TO MEMBER WORKING GROUP 13 FEBRUARY 2018 Electoral Review Working Party 13 February 2018 Discussion Document - Draft Warding Proposals 1 Introduction At the last meeting of the Electoral Review Member Working Group it was agreed, in order to develop proposals for conducting a review of electoral wards for the new East Suffolk Council area, that officers would develop detailed proposals for consideration at this meeting. Opportunity would also be taken to examine issues relating to community identity. However any proposals will need to work within a framework that expects the final new warding structure and therefore the Council size that takes effect at the May 2019 local elections, to have 55 Members. The early findings of the stakeholder consultations, which was agreed at the last meeting would also be reported 2 Background 2.1 In examining the electoral warding options available, Members will be aware of the constraints placed on the exercise as a whole. This is discussed below. Furthermore given the geographical nature and spread of populations across the area, reducing the size of the existing combined representation which is currently 90 to 55, will clearly result in significant adjustments in the size of wards and how the Members serve the Council and local community. 2.2 Polling districts are the building blocks that are used to construct new wards and it is not possible to make any changes to these boundaries. However this would be part of a separate polling district and polling places/station review exercise to be undertaken by the Council once the Boundary Commission s (LGBCE) final recommendations have been issued in October This would enable polling district and places reviews (and any changes made as a consequence) to be commenced after that date. Such a review exercise would need to be completed before 31 January 2020, although the Council could decide to do this in time for the local elections in May Furthermore, it is not possible to adjust the external boundaries of Parish Councils as part of this exercise. However the LGBCE, indicate in their guidance, that it is possible for them to adjust/create a new parish ward where it is dissected by any new district ward. 3 Legal Framework 16

64 3.1 The legal framework for the review exercise is set out in the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which the Local Government Boundary Commission will be using as a bench mark for the review exercise Therefore there are three main considerations: 1. Equalising the number of electors each Councillor represents, which should be within a 10% average. This is regarded as the most important consideration which can only be varied in special circumstances. 2. To reflect community identity any new ward patterns should reflect these identities. 3. To provide for effective and convenient local government. This is concerned with ensuring that Councillors can provide effective representation in a ward. 3.2 The aim therefore in the review exercise, is to try to balance these sometimes conflicting factors. 4 Other Review Factors 4.1 Officers have also taken account of Members desire to foster community cohesion across the whole area, and considered issues around the fact that the existing council boundary between the two authorities would no longer exist. 4.2 There are two further constraints to take into account. The first is relatively minor, which is to ensure that all the historic parish groupings are catered for in the same ward area. The second which is more significant, is the time constraint for completing the first phase of the exercise. The DCLG requires that we submit draft warding proposals by 4 May 2018 at the latest. So working back from this date, the final agreed draft warding proposals will need to be considered and approved by an extraordinary Council meeting of the two Authorities in mid- April. Accordingly we will need to finalise the draft proposals by the date of the next meeting on 19 March (or certainly by the end of March). Failure to meet this deadline could result in a warding structure being imposed on East Suffolk Council, which might for example be based on existing County Council divisions. Ultimately, the Local Government Boundary Commission (and Parliament) will determine what the new wards look like. However, as the two authorities instigating the review, the proposals we submit will be very important. 4.3 The Electoral Review Member Working Group will need to consider and provide names for the new wards once they have been agreed. The only guidance provided by the LGBCE is that these names should be kept relatively short, distinct and easily identifiable to encapsulate the ward. 17

65 5 Warding Proposals 5.1 Several draft warding structures have been developed and details of these will be presented at the meeting so that their respective merits can be considered. Enlarged maps for the urban areas will also be available. An interactive map presentation will be available, as required, on the impact of the ward changes on County s electoral divisions. 5.2 Keeping completely within a +/- 10% baseline figure is extremely difficult, given the constraints around applying the polling district building blocks that make up the proposed new wards, although the LGBCE will accept wards with numbers outside this baseline, provided there are strong reasons put forward to justify this, such as community identity or effective governance links etc. 5.3 All the possible warding structures take into account population growth forecasts in accordance with the LGBCE guidance 6 Size of wards. 6.1 Merits of one member wards Increases community identity and the wards are not so geographically large and diverse. Potentially less workload. 6.2 Merits of two more Member wards helps with conflict of interest issues, for example where a member is fetted by personal interest matters in representing their local community. This can often occur on planning issues. It also provides local residents with an alternative member representative for raising concerns and local issues. It can also help spread the load 6.3 Three Member wards are beneficial in a limited number of more concentrated urban areas where the workload might be higher. 7 Consultation 7.1 It was also agreed at the last meeting that the views of stakeholders would be carried out to give them opportunity to identify community ties and natural parish links. The consultation exercise does not end until 19 February, is after the date of this meeting, and so the final set of results are not yet available. Currently, 230 responses have been received. So far, 92 do not contain actual information that can be used, but the latest responses received are still being reviewed. 18

66 A significant number of the responses are of a more general nature and not relevant or specific to the ward review exercise itself, although some might be useful as part of the wider merger process between the two Councils. 19

67 MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 13 FEBRUARY 2018 SUFFOLK COASTAL AND WAVENEY DISTRICT COUNCILS ONE COUNCIL PROGRAMME MEMBER WORKING GROUP ELECTORAL REVIEW MEMBER WORKING GROUP DATE: Tue, 13 February 2018 TIME: 10:00 LOCATION: Deben meeting room, East Suffolk House NOTES/ ACTIONS FROM MEETING 1. Welcome/ Introduction Apologies received from Cllr Graham Elliot 2. Previous meeting (17/01/2018): Cllr. Mike Deacon would like it noted (retrospectively and with apologies) that he didn t attend the last meeting in January, this was omitted from the previous notes Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have received the forecast and Council size information sent The public need an opportunity to read the Boundary Commission report and make comments in the future. Simplified summary of the forecasting spreadsheet to be circulated to all once more certain of figures with the LGBCE 3. Revised forward meeting schedule/ Key dates Sandra to schedule interim meeting to present an opportunity for the leaders to meet prior to the next MWG in March Meeting on Feb, 20 th will be used to review submissions forecast and short circuit processes S Lewis S Lewis 20

68 4. Briefing MHCLG/ LGBCE Final decision confirmed from the secretary of state Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) are happy to send representatives to brief Members at a meeting that will be opened to all Members 5. Survey responses so far Informal consultation to close on Feb, 19 th 2018 Public will have the opportunity to comment at a formal stage run by the LGBCE Need to develop a comms strategy on this Nick Khan 6. Draft warding proposals Option 1 and 2 were favoured by the majority (with slight amendments needed), these options keep to the principle of removing boundary between the two authorities Option 3 keeps the existing boundary line, this option was not favoured The need to develop a 4 th option was agreed, the results of which will need to reflect the outcome of the consultation Sandra, Karen and Cliff will develop the fourth option and present it at next meeting Proposals presented and discussed: Member comments and discussion It was suggested that Southwold and Walberswick links were an imaginative solution as the community wanted to work together. Water should not be seen as a boundary, particularly as there is a bridge that links the two parishes. Careful thought was needed concerning large geographical areas, in terms of numbers of parishes. Grouping of parishes may help in terms of reducing the number of parish meetings to attend. Several members said that rural areas did not wish to mix with urban areas where there is no commonality, and we needed to respect this, although this would come out of the consultation exercise. One Member was unsure about how will Boundary Commission would react to breaking down barriers 21

69 between urban and rural areas. It was important to make realistic connections in these areas although it was appreciated that we could not please everyone. Boundary Commission would not, of course, look at local politics but this was a new district, so new approach was required Another Member said the A12 was a natural corridor and that we should look to communities that naturally move towards each other for services and a new approach was need. The meeting discussed issues effecting Felixstowe which was split down the middle (north to south) with two three-member wards. A14 provides a border as Garrison Way was approached. Langer Road was also natural split. Communities sit more comfortably in those areas. It was also stressed that the two villages in Trimley, did not have any links with Felixstowe, and for this reason several members could not support option 1 but preferred option 2, although none of the options were ideal Andy Smith asked if the Officers could investigate three two-member wards for Felixstowe. Martlesham had also become a draw for shopping Generalisations between urban and rural cannot realistically be matched although we needed to be fair to the different types of areas across the area It was important to retain the Trimlies as they had the look and feel of two villages combined together as a village identity. They should not been seen as an extension of Felixstowe, which was a proud urban area of its own. The Chairman said it was important to recognise specific types of areas across the new district: from solid urban areas of Lowestoft and Felixstowe to solid rural areas, Market Towns and new Towns such as Martlesham and Kesgrave. He explained that he did not particularly like any of the three, but really wanted a pick and mix of all three. There were certain aspects of 3 liked. He felt the Aldeburgh solution did not work in options 1 and 2. The Southwold solution in option 2 was preferred. There were cross boundaries where communities fitted e.g. - Halesworth and Blyth. He 22

70 supported bottom third of option 3, like Southwold for option 2 and the top section of option 1 One Member said he had a personal preference for option 2 and Blyth estuary fitted well and would get rid of current boundary between the two Councils There was a strengthening view for option 2 by end of meeting. Another Member was strongly against Option 3 as it kept the current boundary. Halesworth surrounding villages need to be grouped together. The member preferred option 1 or 2, but leaning towards option 1. We should be looking at areas connected to make councillors job easier, when dealing with people. Halesworth is a key service area Parishes not liking each other was not a factor, and parishes would not be forced to come together One Member said they supported a logical division between Bungay and Saints in option, but overall option 2 was favoured Several Members spoke in support of option 1 as being well balanced and also because it removed the current boundary and suggested that an option 4 should be developed by tweaking of options 1 & 2. Boundaries were invisible to residents Several Members felt that option 3 was not practical, as it split amalgamated parish councils, preferring to tweak option 1 with elements of Option 2. Purdis Farm and Levington have bus services to Ipswich and not Martlesham. To be realistic, people were not that bothered, over ward boundaries. The Vice Chairman said we should be aware of the ripple effect when making changes. There were limits in how this can be done His preference was for option 1 with option 2 as an alternative. An option 4 needs to be developed to deal with the Trimley issue. This could be developed out of option 1. Option 1 and 2 had the benefit of re-drawing the existing boundaries without prejudice. There was no room for slippage in the timetable 23

71 Another member felt that the current (existing SCDC) ward for Saxmundham worked well and should be a single Member ward. Benhall for example did not necessarily fit with Saxmundham and his preference was option 1 and he did not like option 3 The meeting concluded by proposing that changes should be made to option 1 and 2, so it is worked into a fourth option, taking into account any relevant comments from the consultation exercise It was also suggested that Officers look further into proposed warding arrangement in Lowestoft and Felixstowe. 7. Risks No additional risks identified. Item to be carried forward to the next meeting 8. Any changes to MWG work programme No key changes to the programme Lead Members to work diligently with officers Next Meeting: 19/03/ :00 G12S, Riverside 24

72 REPORT TO MEMBER WORKING GROUP 19 MARCH 2018 SUFFOLK COASTAL AND WAVENEY DISTRICT COUNCILS ONE COUNCIL PROGRAMME MEMBER WORKING GROUP REPORT Member Working Group: Electoral Review 19 th March 2018 Work Package ref: ES182 Draft Warding Proposals Description of Work Package: 1. Introduction At the last meeting of the Working Group on 13 February 2018, Members considered the merits of 3 warding structure options for the new East Suffolk Council area and broadly supported the principles and approaches outlined in option 1 and 2 subject to further examination. The meeting agreed to develop a fourth warding option, taking into account work already done on these options and including the various comments made at the meeting but still keeping within the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) guidance principles. Members also reinforced the view that the response from the informal consultation should be reflected upon and where appropriate, included in the fourth option. A copy of the guidance principles as set out in legislation is reproduced again in Appendix A to this report, for information. Background information: 2. Informal Discussions with the LGBCE A recent meeting with representatives from the LGBCE concerning the review process and timetable was positive, with the Commission commending the Council on the progress made so far. Some key dates for the review were particularly emphasised: the deadline for submitting the draft warding proposals of 4 May 2018 the formal review launch date of 3 July 2017 the deadline for responses to the LGBCE formal consultation process of 27 August 2018 The LGBCE representatives made two specific, although minor, requests for changes to the forecasting submission to date involving the polling district figures for Kessingland (KKS) and Felixstowe South (FH). The projected forecast figures for 2023 were revised downward slightly as the supporting evidence that developments would take place by 2023 could not be substantiated. This has a very minor impact as it reduces overall projected final electorate by 201 electors, from to and makes a minor adjustment to the base line electorate equality figure from 3673 to 3670 for the 55 Member option. There are also minor knock on effects to the percentages but this has no effect on the warding structure proposals. 3. Review Time Frame Throughout the Boundary Review exercise, particular emphasis has been placed on the 25

73 pressure the Council is under to meet the timeframes for submitting proposals to the LGBCE. The deadline for this exercise is 4 May This requires formal ratification by the Council at a proposed meeting on 30 April. Failure to meet this deadline could result in a warding structure being imposed on East Suffolk Council. It is essential therefore that all Members of the two Councils have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft warding proposals. To help ensure this, all Members will have access to copies of this report, maps and associated schedules, and are especially encouraged to attend this working group meeting in order to provide input and give their views. It may be too late to make any changes once the final proposals are presented to the Full Simultaneous Council meeting for formal approval due to the tight timeframes. 4. Naming of Wards As mentioned at the last meeting, the Member Working Group will need to consider and provide names for the new wards once warding proposals been agreed. The only guidance provided by the LGBCE is that these names should be kept relatively short, distinct and easily identifiable to encapsulate the ward. It is proposed to present suggested names for the new Wards for consideration at the next Working Group Meeting on 18 April. A final recommendation can then be submitted to the full Simultaneous Council meeting on 30 April All Members are encouraged to attend this Working Group meeting, so that the proposed naming of wards take account of Members local knowledge. 5. Consultation Members will also be aware, that in parallel with the review process itself, a consultation exercise with residents and stakeholders has been carried out to give opportunity to identify community ties and natural parish links. The closing date for comments was after the date of the last meeting. A detailed summary of the responses received is attached (Appendix B). The full list of all responses received is available via the Members area of Fred or on request. Any individual comments about ties and community links that relate to the proposed new district wards are included in the end column of the draft warding structures. Options considered: 6. Warding Proposals Further detailed work has been done to try to meet the Members views and objectives bearing in mind the various constraints placed on the review exercise itself as explained at the last meeting. Such constraints make it impossible to meet everyone s ideal model, which inevitably leads to the need for compromised solutions. Therefore the fourth option is a careful mix of the best of option 1 and 2 and attempts to be bold and forward looking in aspiration, to reflect the new Council. The option also addresses concerns raised at the last meeting about the Felixstowe Wards by splitting the wards into 2 broadly equal 3 member wards (this covers both 4A & 4B). One of the BC key principles is electoral equality which aims to keep within a + or 10% variation figure. There are two threads to option 4. Option 4A 26

74 The first thread (4A) meets the Council s previous decision for a 55 Member structure solution. Apart from the wards being renumbered, the key changes are: Ward 11 (Beccles) removal of Worlingham which is now in Ward 8 linked with Barnby and North Cove. Ward 8 Gisleham moves to ward 7 and linked with Carlton Colville Ward 10 expanded to become a 2 Member ward covering parishes bordering the coast around Southwold. Ward 15 (Leiston) removal of some small parishes to be linked at adjacent wards Ward 18 (Framlingham) expanded to become a two Member ward which focuses more on the surrounding parishes to form a Framlingham cluster Ward 21 (Woodbridge) expanded to include adjacent parishes of Bredfield, Boulge, Hasketon and Burgh which focuses more around Woodbridge. Ward 17 (Saxmundham) becomes a single Member ward with the removal of Benhall and Sternfield to ward 19 which focuses more on Saxmundham itself. As a consequence of these adjustments there are minor boundary adjustments to wards 16, 19, 20, 22 and 25. Option 4A produces 8 single member wards, 16 two Member wards and 5 three Member wards. With this option two wards No 1 and 11 are above the 10% threshold. A table describing these changes is attached as Appendix C and mapping is also provided to members as separate attachments. Option 4B Notwithstanding that the Members may regard the 55 Councillor solution as their preferred submission option; the meeting may also wish to consider a slight variation to the model as a second thread to option 4. This variation proposes a 56 Member solution and its key feature is to create district ward boundaries in Lowestoft that are co terminus with the Town Council s Boundary (this solution is not possible with the 55 Member solution). This could arguably have advantages especially in the long term. Its other features are: Changes to wards 1, 2, 3 and 5 as a consequence of adjustments to Lowestoft town area mentioned above. Changes to ward 7 which becomes a 3 Member ward by adding in a range of adjacent parishes immediately to the south. Changes to ward 9 (Bungay) which slightly reduces in size by removing some of the smaller parishes to the east, Minor changes to 12 (Southwold Coastal) by removing Henstead and Rushmere. Minor changes to ward 13 (Halesworth) and 15 (Leiston) by removing Friston Minor changes to ward 17 (Framlingham) through extending it to cover small parishes to the south. Ward 20 (Woodbridge) expanded to include adjacent parishes of Bredfield, Boulge, Hasketon and Burgh which focuses more around Woodbridge. Ward 21 reduced in size to become a single Member ward through removing Parishes to the east. Ward 22 Bromeswell is removed from Melton. 27

75 The odd shape of ward 23 is adjusted to make it more cohesive. The anomalies of ward 27 are corrected to remove the Trimleys from Felixstowe. Option 4B produces 8 single Member wards, 15 two Member wards and 6 three Member wards. With this option three wards No 11, 19 & 24 are above the 10% threshold. A table describing the changes is attached as Appendix D and mapping is also provided to Members as separate attachments. Members are asked to consider both options and make recommendations to take forward to Member Programme Board. Recommendation to Member Programme Board: To be completed with recommendation following Member Working Group discussions MWG Date: 19 March 2018 MPB Date: 16 April 2018 MPB (to be completed by Programme Team) Recommendation: 28

76 APPENDIX A LGBCE GUIDANCE FOR THE REVIEW EXERCISE The Commission has three main criteria - set out in law - which it must follow when it produces a new pattern of wards or electoral divisions. They are: The new pattern of wards should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority. Ward patterns should as far as possible reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable. The electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government and reflect the electoral cycle of the council. Our decisions on new wards and boundaries will always be based on the criteria above. As such, the Commission is much more likely to accept your proposals if they are based on one or more of the criteria above. 29

77 Informal Electoral Review survey (22 Jan to 19 Feb 2018) APPENDIX B As agreed at the 17 January 2018 meeting, an informal consultation exercise was carried out with residents and stakeholders via Survey Monkey, to identify any relevant natural community ties or links. During the consultation exercise, a total of 287 responses were received. Of these, 169 had actual data that could be used. A significant number of responses made general comments, and these are summarised below for information and reference. The complete detail of all the responses can be viewed on the Members area of Fred or on request. There were also some specific comments about ties and links between parishes and communities and these have been included in the respective draft warding structure models (Appendix C and D - Options 4A and 4B) under the heading of ties and community links. There have also been two letters/ s from Town and Parish Councils: Felixstowe - A Comment is about LGBCE needing to amend parish ward arrangements if necessary. Given that the review is likely to affect the future number of District Councillors/District Wards (and potentially Town Council Wards) in Felixstowe, the Town Council has some interest in doing a CGR with very limited terms of reference namely to review the number of Felixstowe Town Council seats which could be carried out at the same time. Comment: Any suggestion of a minor CGR, to cover just the Felixstowe area, would not be permitted by the Boundary Commission I understand. In any case it might be appropriate for the new Council to consider undertaking a wider CGR review, once everything is confirmed and settled from this exercise. Furthermore any exercise commenced this year, would pre-empt the outcome and final recommendations of the Commission. Martlesham - A preference for one ward covering the whole Parish Council, even if this results in Martlesham reducing its representation from 2 to 1. If there are still not sufficient no of electors, the Parish would like Martlesham to be linked with smaller adjoining parishes e.g. Brightwell. Comment: Given the significant variation spread in population density across the parish and density of the adjoining parish area, this option is not possible. Although linking with a neighbouring smaller parish as suggested, is possible. The responses submitted containing general comments broadly fall into the following themes: Concern about wards being too big, as this reduces the quality of representation and a resultant loss of democracy and risks stretching services too far. Loss of rural identity. Proper separation between rural and urban area, to protect Suffolk s unique unspoilt nature and also its tourism. Concern about small villages losing identity. Geographical boundaries use of rivers and roads (e.g. A47 would be a useful boundary line for new wards). Avoid cutting through villages. Specific size of Wards. Conflicting views. Some suggesting that we use single Member wards across the district as much as possible, whereas others are concerned about work load levels that would increase with larger wards and fewer Councillors. Therefore having multi member wards will help cater for this. New ward boundaries should mimic County divisions Reasons for the change. Existing arrangements works well. Whilst its good idea to want to reduce costs overall, the reasons for this should be explained. Potential opportunity to delegate more functions/services either to Market towns or individual ward member(s). 30

78 APPENDIX C Draft New Ward Structure - Option 4A (55 Member structure) Ward Electoral No s No of Cllrs Variation in 2023 Description of proposed new ward composition Detail and relevant comments from consultations No % Corton, Lound, Somerleyton, Blundeston, Flixton East, Camps Heath, Oulton Centre Oulton Broad, Carlton, Colville, Gisleham and Corton kept together and North, Margaret s Parkhill and West No % Gunton, St Margaret s Centre and East No % Harbour North, Centre & South, Normanston North & South No % Oulton Broad West, South and East and Whitton North No % Kirkley North & South and West, Pakefield East, North & South Kirkley and Pakefield Distinct area of Pakefield should be retained and not put with Carlton Colville No % Carlton East, North and West & Whitton Centre, East & South No % Carlton Colville North, East & South, Gisleham North and South Mutford and Colville and Gisleham together Rushmere No % Worlingham, Barnby and North Cove No % Kessingland Kessingland & Gisleham No % Dunwich, Reydon, Southwold, Walberswick, Henstead, Covehithe, Uggeshall, South Cove, Frostenden, Benacre, Wrentham, Wangford & Henham, Blythburgh, Darsham, Westleton, Bramfield & Thorington Southwold Easton Bavents, Reydon, Wangford, Wrentham Also Southwold Walberswick, Bulcamp and Henham and also Reydon. Similar links between Reydon Wangford and Wrentham Bramfield and Walpole No % Beccles (All wards) County Division of Beccles Worlingham, Barnby and North Cove make good new district ward. Also Beccles Ellough & Worlingham No % Bungay (All), South Elmham All Saints, South Elmham St Michael, South Elmham St Peter,, Homersfield, Ilketshall St Andrew, Ilketshall St John, Ilketshall St Lawrence and Ilketshall St Margaret, and Flixton West, South Elmham St Cross, South Elmham St Margaret, South Elmham St James, Barsham, Shipmeadow, Mettingham, Redisham, Ringsfield, Rumburgh Ellough, Sotterley Shadingfield and Willingham St Mary and Weston No % Blyford, Sotherton, Holton, Westhall, Spexhall, Halesworth North and South, Wissett, and Brampton with Stoven, Weston with Mells Links between Shipmeadow & Barsham Also links between Shadingfield, Willingham St Mary s and Sotterley Halesworth & Holton Also Halesworth & Rumburgh 31

79 No % Cratfield, Kelsale Cum Carlton, Yoxford, Heveningham, Huntingfield, Peasenhall, Sibton and Rendham, Sweffling, Ubbeston Cransford, Cookley, Walpole Linstead Magna and Parva, Chediston Also Sweffling, Bruisyard & Cransford. Further suggestion of links between Ubbeston, Huntingfield & Heveningham. Also links Ubbeston & Heveningham Also suggestion of links with Chediston Cookley and Cratfield No % Leiston (all), Knodishall, Middleton and Theberton &, Aldringham cum Thorpe Leiston should have two distinct Councillors No % Aldeburgh, Friston, Iken, Sudbourne Orford, Gedgrave and Snape No % Saxmundham Links between Saxmundham Great/Little Glemham, Farnham, Marlesford & Stratford St Andrew No % Framingham, Dennington, Badingham, Brandeston, Bruisyard, Cransford, Charsfield, Sweffling, Great Glemham, Saxtead, Parham, Earl Soham, Easton, Monewden, Hoo, Cretingham, Dallinghoo, Debach, Letheringham, Kettleburgh No % Rendlesham, Wicket Market, Pettistree, Campsea Ashe, Ufford, Sternfield, Benhall, Little Glemham, Tunstall, Blaxhall, Hacheston, Marlesford Stratford St Andrew & Farnham Wickham Market, Ufford and Woodbridge and the peninsula. Monewden & Hoo, but not Cretingham Another suggestion of links between Letheringham, Monewden, Hoo Kettleburgh & Charsfield Chillesford & Sudbourne Wickham Market, Ufford and Woodbridge and the peninsula Also the suggestion of links between Hacheston & Campsea. Also Hacheston Parham Marlesford and Great Glemham. Also Wickham Market is linked with Pettistree Blaxhall & Hacheston No % Melton Melton and Ufford. No % Woodbridge (all) Martlesham North (MAX) Bredfield, Boulge, Hasketon & Burgh No % Grundisburgh, Culpho, Tuddenham St Martin, Westerfield, Otley, Clopton, Witnesham & Swilland Westerfield, Tuddenham Witnesham & Grundisburgh linked joint choir and newsletter. No % Rushmere St Andrew Village and Tower, Purdis Farm, Foxhall & Brightwell & Bucklesham Purdis Farm does not want to be linked to Felixstowe No % Alderton, Ramsholt, Bawdsey, Boyton, Bromeswell, Eyke, Hollesley, Shottisham, Sutton (SG) and Sutton Heath, Butley, Capel St Andrew & Wantisden, and Chillesford Also links between Bromeswell and Sutton Heath 32

80 No % Martlesham (MA) Martlesham Heath (MB), Newbourne, Hemley & Waldringfield, Playford, Great and Little Bealings No % Trimley St Marys and St Martins, Falkenham, Kirton, Nacton, Levington, Stratton Hall, Martlesham links naturally with Little Bearings and Waldringfield or Woodbridge Also several comments about keeping Playford, Great & Little Bearings, Culpho & Grundisburgh together as they work well together. Also including Bredfield Keep Kirton Levington and Bucklesham Parishes together Also suggestion of links between Falkenham, Levington, Stratton Hall, Hemley, Nacton, Brightwell and Waldringfield No % Kesgrave West and East Wards and Martlesham West (MAY) Also suggestion of including Playford, Kesgrave East as natural cluster No % Felixstowe South (FD, FE & FH) Felixstowe West (FI & FJ) No % Felixstowe East Parish Ward (F), East (FA, FF & FG) Felixstowe Walton (FC, FB & FBX)), and Felixstowe Allenby (FK & FKX) Total 201, Target Average 3670 Keep Felixstowe and Walton together 8 Single Member wards, 16 two Member Wards and 5 three Member wards, Key: Coloured and underlined parish names in the same colour, indicate where parish groupings apply which ideally should be located in the same ward. This option delivers the objective. 33

81 Draft New Ward Structure - Option 4B (56 Member structure) APPENDIX D Ward Electoral No s No of Cllrs Variation in 2023 Description of proposed new ward composition Relevant comments from Stakeholders etc. consultations exercise on ties and community links No % Corton, Lound, Somerleyton, Blundeston, Flixton East, Camps Heath, Oulton Centre and North, Margaret s Parkhill No % Normanston North and South, St Margaret s West, Centre and East No % Gunton, Harbour North and Centre No % Oulton Broad West, South and East and Whitton North Oulton Broad, Carlton, Colville, Gisleham and Corton kept together No % Kirkley North & South and Pakefield East, North & South and Harbour South No % Whitton East, Central & South and Carlton East and West & Kirkley West No % Carlton Colville North, East & South, Gisleham North and South, Mutford Carlton North, Rushmere, Ellough, Sotterley Shadingfield and Willingham St Mary & Henstead & Weston Kirkley and Pakefield Distinct area of Pakefield should be retained and not put with Carlton Colville Colville and Gisleham together Also links between Shadingfield, Willingham St Mary and Sotterley No % Kessingland Kessingland & Gisleham No % Bungay (All), South Elmham All Saints, South Elmham St Links between Shipmeadow & Barsham. Michael, Elmham St Peter Homersfield, Ilketshall St Andrew, Ilketshall St John, Ilketshall St Lawrence and Ilketshall St Margaret, and Flixton West, South Elmham St Cross, South Elmham St Margaret South Elmham St James,, Barsham, Shipmeadow, Mettingham, Redisham, Ringsfield, Rumburgh No % Worlingham, Barnby and North Cove No % Beccles (All wards) County Division of Beccles Worlingham, Barnby and North Cove make good new district ward. Also Beccles Ellough & Worlingham No % Reydon, Wrentham, Benacre, Bramfield, Thorington, Henstead, Uggeshall, South Cove, Frostenden, Covehithe, Southwold,, Blythburgh, Dunwich, Walberswick, Westleton, Darsham, Wangford and Henham & Wenhaston with Mells Southwold, Easton Bavents, Reydon, Wangford Wrentham. Also Southwold Walberswick, Bulcamp and Henham and also Reydon. Similar links between Reydon Wangford and Wrentham 34

82 No % Blyford, Sotherton, Holton Westhall, Spexhall, Halesworth North and South, Wissett, Chediston, Linstead Magna and Parva, Cookley, Walpole, and Rumburgh and Brampton with Stoven Halesworth & Holton Also Halesworth & Rumburgh Also suggestion of links with Chediston Cookley and Cratfield No % Cratfield, Kelsale Cum Carlton, Yoxford, Badingham, Heveningham, Ubbeston, Huntingfield, Peasenhall, Sibton and Rendham No % Leiston (all), Aldringham, Friston, Knodishall, Middleton and Theberton Bramfield and Walpole linked.further suggestion of links between Ubbeston, Huntingfield & Heveningham. Also links Ubbeston & Heveningham Leiston should have two distinct Councillors No % Saxmundham Links between Saxmundham Great/Little Glemham Farnham Marlesford & Stratford St Andrew No % Brandeston, Bruisyard, Charsfield, Cretingham, Monewden, Hoo, Earl Soham, Easton, Letheringham, Kettleburgh, Cransford, Dennington, Framingham, Great Glemham, Parham, Saxtead, and Sweffling, Dallinghoo & Debach No % Blaxhall, Hacheston, Camp Ashe, Pettistree, Ufford, Wickham Market, Rendlesham, Marlesford, Little Glemham, Benhall, Sternfield, Straford St Andrew and Farnham and Blaxhall No % Aldeburgh, Butley, Capel St Andrew, Wantisden, Chillesford, Snape, Sudbourne, Iken and Tunstall No % Martlesham North and Woodbridge (All), Hasketon, Bredfield, Boulge and Burgh No % Clopton, Grundisburgh, Culpho, Otley, Tuddenham St Martin, Westerfield, Witnesham and Swilland Monewden & Hoo, but not Cretingham Another suggestion of links between Letheringham, Monewden, Hoo Kettleburgh & Charsfield Also Sweffling, Bruisyard & Cransford Wickham Market, Ufford and Woodbridge and the peninsula. Also the suggestion of links between Hacheston & Campsea. Also Hacheston Parham Marlesford and Great Glemham. Also Wickham Market is linked with Pettistree Blaxhall & Hacheston Chillesford & Sudbourne Westerfield, Tuddenham Witnesham & Grundisburgh linked joint choir and newsletter. Also several comments about keeping Playford, Great & Little Bealings, Culpho & Grundisburgh together as they work well together. Also including Bredfield No % Melton Melton and Ufford. No % Martlesham (MA) & Heath (MB), Great Bealings and Little Bealings,. Hemley, Newbourne, Playford, and Waldringfield No % Alderton, Ramsholt, Bawdsey, Boyton, Eyke, Hollesley, Orford, Gedgrave, Shottisham, Sutton (SG) and Sutton Heath, and Also links between Bromeswell and Sutton Heath 35

83 Bromeswell No % Kesgrave West and East Wards and Martlesham West Also suggestion of including Playford, Kesgrave East as natural cluster No % Rushmere St Andrew Village and Tower, Purdis Farm, Foxhall, Brightwell and Bucklesham No % Trimley St Mary and St Martin, Kirton, Falkenham Levington, Stratton Hall and Nacton Purdis Farm does not want to be linked to Felixstowe Keep Kirton Levington and Bucklesham Parishes together. Martlesham links naturally with Little Bearings and Waldringfield or Woodbridge. Also suggestion of links between Falkenham, Levington, Stratton Hall, Hemley, Nacton, Brightwell and Waldringfield No % Felixstowe West (FI and FJ) Felixstowe South (FD, FE & FH) Keep Felixstowe and Walton together No % Felixstowe East Parish Ward (F), East (FA ) Felixstowe Walton (FC, FB & FBX)), and Felixstowe East ( FG & FF) Felixstowe Allenby (FK & FKX Total 201, Target Average Single Member wards, 15 two Member Wards and 6 three Member wards, Key: Coloured and underlined parish names in the same colour, indicate where parish groupings apply which ideally should be located in the same ward. This option delivers the objective. 36

84 MEMBER WORKING GROUP MINUTES 19 MARCH 2018 SUFFOLK COASTAL AND WAVENEY DISTRICT COUNCILS ONE COUNCIL PROGRAMME MEMBER WORKING GROUP ELECTORAL REVIEW MEMBER WORKING GROUP DATE: Wednesday, 19 March 2018 TIME: 2.00pm LOCATION: Orbis Energy, Wilde Street, Lowestoft NOTES/ ACTIONS FROM MEETING Attending Councillors: Colin Hedgley Steve Gallant Andy Smith Tony Cooper Nicky Yeo John Fisher Mark Bee Alison Cackett Jenny Ceresa Paul Ashdown Mike Barnard Michael Ladd Malcolm Cherry Yvonne Cherry Norman Brooks Bruce Provan Geoff Holdcroft Mike Deacon Carol Poulter Chris Blundell Stephen Burroughes Mark Newton Graham Elliot Simon Woods Janet Craig Keith Patience Keith Robinson Linda Coulam David Ritchie Nick Webb Craig Rivett Stephen Baker (Chief Executive Officer) Sandra Lewis (Programme Manager) Nick Khan (Strategic Director) Karen Last (Electoral Services) Cliff Robinson (Electoral Services) Tim Willis (Electoral Services) Agnes Ogundiran (Project Support Officer) 1. Welcome/ Introduction Apologies given by Cllr Andy Smith in advance of his need to leave the meeting early. Apologies given by Stephen Ardley Jenny Ceresa 37