FOI REQUEST 106/08: DATE: 10/10/2008

Transcription

1 FOI REQUEST 106/08: DATE: 10/10/2008 From: Sent: 10 October :21 To: Archie Gall Cc: Michelanne Wilson Subject: Draft Proposals for unitary local government in Suffolk - Freedom of Information Request On behalf of [ ] I wish to make a further Freedom of Information request with regard to the draft proposal for unitary local government in Suffolk and the subsequent consultation process, concerning the proposal, itself and also the Suffolk unitary authority ( the One Suffolk concept) which the Boundary Committee also considered. In order properly to understand the nature and type of meetings attended by the Boundary Committee during the consultation period, I request the following details relating to those meetings: The date, time and venue of each meeting Names and/or titles of those who attended each meeting, including: - those from the Boundary Committee - those who attended in an individual capacity - those who attended in a representative capacity including details as to the body/organisation on whose behalf they attended Any Agenda for each meeting Any notes or minutes of each meeting The purpose of each meeting Whether the meeting was held at the request of the Boundary Committee or another party and, if so, the name of that party I await your response within the timescales laid down in the Freedom of Information Act Meanwhile it would be appreciated if you would acknowledge receipt of this request. OUR RESPONSE: DATE: 14/10/2008 From: Michelanne Wilson Sent: 14 October :13 To: Subject: FOI 106/08 Dear

2 Our Ref: FOI 106/08 Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act dated 10 October You have requested the following: 'I wish to make a further Freedom of Information request with regard to the draft proposal for unitary local government in Suffolk and the subsequent consultation process, concerning the proposal, itself and also the Suffolk unitary authority ( the One Suffolk concept) which the Boundary Committee also considered. In order properly to understand the nature and type of meetings attended by the Boundary Committee during the consultation period, I request the following details relating to those meetings: The date, time and venue of each meeting Names and/or titles of those who attended each meeting, including: those from the Boundary Committee those who attended in an individual capacity those who attended in a representative capacity including details as to the body/organisation on whose behalf they attended Any Agenda for each meeting Any notes or minutes of each meeting The purpose of each meeting Whether the meeting was held at the request of the Boundary Committee or another party and, if so, the name of that party.' You may expect to receive a reply sent from the Commission very shortly, Yours sincerely, Michelanne Wilson Legal Officer The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel: Fax: Democracy matters P Please consider the environment before printing this . DATE: 12/11/2008

3 From: Michelanne Wilson Sent: 12 November :57 To: [ ] Subject: FW: FOI draft response Dear [ ] Our Ref: FOI 106/08 Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act dated 10 October The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days. We apologise for the delay in responding to you on this occasion. Please find your request below in bold together with our response. In order to properly understand the nature and type of meetings attended by the Boundary Committee, regarding its structural review of Suffolk, during the consultation period, I request the following details relating to those meetings: The date, time and venue of each meeting Names and/or titles of those who attended each meeting, including: 1. those from the Boundary Committee 2. those who attended in an individual capacity 3. those who attended in a representative capacity including details as to the body/organisation on whose behalf they attended Any Agenda for each meeting Any notes or minutes of each meeting The purpose of each meeting Whether the meeting was held at the request of the Boundary Committee or another party and, if so, the name of that party During the period 7 July to 26 September 2008 the Boundary Committee attended ten meetings, the details of which are shown in the attached spreadsheet. Please see attached agenda and handwritten notes taken by an officer of the Boundary Committee relating to the 12 September meeting held at the request of Suffolk County Council Notes of all meetings that members of the Committee attended following the publication of the draft proposals report published on 7 July 2008 are contained in the document below.

4 Detailed notes for each of the roundtable discussions held at the request of the Boundary Committee have also been attached for Lowestoft, Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds I hope that the above information is to your satisfaction. If you are not satisfied with this response, please note that the Commission operates a review procedure, details of which are on our website. Please also note that if you have exhausted all internal Commission review procedures and you are still not satisfied you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. Details of this procedure can be found on the ICO website: Yours sincerely Michelanne Calhoun Wilson Legal Advisor The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel: Fax: Democracy matters Please consider the environment before printing this .

5 Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July Suffolk Officers: Kalim Anwer and Alison Wildig Bury St Edmunds Roundtables, 19 September Max Caller, Robin Gray, Joan Jones and Kalim Anwer The day consisted of three roundtable discussions with representatives from partnerships, local businesses and the voluntary sector. During the partnerships roundtable the key points which were raised included the view that having two separate unitary authorities could lead to a fragmented approach to delivering services for existing county-wide organisations; working relationships with Cambridge should not be severed. There was a consensus throughout the day that Lowestoft should remain within Suffolk as other neighbouring towns look to Lowestoft. During the businesses roundtable the key points which were raised included the view that the review does not seem necessary in a sparsely populated rural area. Businesses should also have a voice in the new set up of a Unitary Authority. During the voluntary groups roundtable the key points which were raised included the concern that rural Suffolk could face deprivation and increase in costs for services such as social care, due to the way contracts for services are charged between urban and rural areas; fears were also expressed at the potential workload for Parish Councillors/Unitary Councillors in a new unitary authority. Meetings with County Council, district councils and stakeholders, 12 September Max Caller, Joan Jones, Peter Knight, Jane Earl, Archie Gall and Alison Wildig 11am Meeting arranged by Suffolk CC who invited delegates. Suffolk CC and delegates attending. Views expressed related to having voice and clout. A number of attendees referred to value of partnership working and the need to maintain effective partnerships. View that dividing Suffolk would result in breaking up the brand of Suffolk. Important to present attractive environment for businesses. Support for Lowestoft to be retained in the county. 1pm Meeting with Suffolk Chief Executives and Leaders. A number of process issues raised including whether Committee consider it will be possible to recommend Lowestoft being included in a Suffolk based authority. Noted that most info from 151 officers will be agreed on across the county. BC members reinforced message that there must be a set of principles for any structure, no matter what size.

6 3pm All Suffolk district councils, cross-party Main issue is concern over lack of champion for Rural Suffolk. Good education record in rural Suffolk. Farming economy even though no single businesses. Concern over involvement of parish councils in review process view there will need to be education of parish councils in any new structure. Meeting with Town & Parish Councils, 1 & 2 September Colin Mellors, Robin Gray and Kalim Anwer Two sessions. At both sessions a short presentation was given to the representatives from various Parish and Town Councils followed by a question and answer session. The main issues which were raised on 1 September (Ipswich) included clarification on whether or not the Boundary Committee can recommend the status quo. Concerns over the use of community boards were raised, for the reason that they suffered from a democratic deficit if non elected members were able to sit on these boards with voting rights; views were also given that this model could potentially create a second tier of local government. Instead, an alternative model was proposed which could consist of clusters of Parishes forming together to take decisions on their respective locality. Questions were also put to the Committee members on the reasoning used to reject an east/west pattern of Unitary Authorities. During the second meeting (west of Bury), views were expressed that a countywide Unitary Authority would ignore the linkages the west of Suffolk has built up with Cambridge. Questions were also asked of the Committee members on the processes and procedures of property dispersals after the creation of a Unitary Authority. During both sessions, it was voiced that even after the final recommendation has been submitted, Parish and Town Councils should continue to be consulted with. Ipswich Roundtables, 1 August Max Caller, Colin Mellors, Joan Jones, Peter Knight, Alison Wildig and Kalim Anwer The day consisted of three roundtable discussions with representatives from partnerships, local businesses and the voluntary sector. During the partnerships roundtable the key points which were raised included the view that having two separate unitary authorities could lead to a fragmented approach to delivering services for existing county-wide organisations; communication links within rural Suffolk are very poor and could have a detrimental effect on this proposed authority. There was a consensus throughout the day that Lowestoft should remain within Suffolk as other neighbouring towns look to Lowestoft. There was also a consensus by advocates for the proposed Ipswich & Felixstowe unitary authority that it should expand further to include more areas of the Haven Gateway.

7 During the businesses roundtable the key points which were raised included the view that the economy of rural Suffolk could suffer as Ipswich & Felixstowe is the wealth generator of Suffolk; existing transport links across Suffolk are very poor and whichever pattern of unitary authorities is implemented should deal with this issue; the rationale behind an east/west split of the County was raised as distinguished between the agriculture economy of the west and the coastal economy of the east. During the voluntary groups roundtable the key points which were raised included the concern that rural Suffolk could face deprivation and increase in costs for services such as social care, due to the way contracts for services are charged between urban and rural areas; quality of staff, the roles offered and the level of training were re-iterated as key factors for attracting people to work for rural Suffolk. Lowestoft Roundtables, 31 July Peter Knight, Jane Earl, Colin Mellors, Alison Wildig, Will Morrison planning blight during review, concern CEFAS will move to another town. unitary outcome best. Waveney shouldn t be separated Lowestoft part of the district, Beccles, Bungay, Halesworth look towards it, although acknowledge no real Waveney identity. Parliamentary boundary better? Waveney working with Suffolk - If Waveney should be with Lowestoft it would be better to remain in Suffolk weakening of Suffolk without 3 key towns By linking Lowestoft with Norfolk, harder to find funds and focus- Norfolk has different focus for tourism/business etc Southern part of wedge could be extended further south as could cut off the south west of Norfolk rural authority chunk (LSP consideration). PCT see wedge as having merit as don t want too large an authority same grounds as wanting Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft PCT in first place. Business consensus two county unitary authorities for Norfolk and Suffolk Voluntary groups consider large unitary authorities are too big to deliver successfully, although can work cross boundaries. Suffolk Association of Parish and Town Councils, 23 July Robin Gray, Peter Knight and Kalim Anwer A short presentation was given to the Executive Board of the Association followed by a question and answer session. The issues which were raised during the meeting included concerns over the review timescale and the length of time does not give adequate time for parishes to give an informed view; whether or

8 not it was still viable for people to write in supporting any of the original concepts submitted; Community Partnership Boards could lead to creating a second tier; the economic viability of rural Suffolk -taking out Ipswich and Lowestoft could lead to rural deprivation with a potential increase in costs for providing social care to rural areas. It was highly stressed in the meeting that the Boundary Committee should also visit the west of the County in order to give the opportunity for Parishes to make their views. There were complaints that Parishes in the west found it difficult to attend the previous session which was held just outside Ipswich. Leaders, Chief Executives and Party Leaders, 17 July All Deputy Commissioners, Alison Wildig, Kalim Anwer and Gareth Nicholson A short presentation was given to the attendees followed by a question and answer session. The issues which were raised during the meeting included whether or not it was still viable for people to write in supporting any of the original concepts submitted. Views were also expressed regarding the proposed boundaries and whether the proposed Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary could take in more of the area designated by the Haven Gateway. MP briefing, 9 July Max Caller, Colin Mellors, Joan Jones, Ron Johnson, Alison Wildig, Sam Hartley A joint session for both Suffolk and Norfolk MPs. Standard presentation given. Strongly expressed views given by MPs against the draft proposal in both counties.

9 Attendees at the Bury St Edmunds roundtable discussions on 19 th September 2008 Boundary Committee members and officers: Max Caller, Joan Jones (partnerships and businesses only), Robin (partnerships only), Kalim Anwer Session: Partnerships Organisation Bury St Edmunds Society East of England Faiths Council English Heritage Gateopener Greater Cambridge Partnership Suffolk Criminal Justice Board Suffolk PCT Suffolk Probation Area Suffolk Youth Offending Service Name R. Sharpe Paul Hills Natalie Tobutt Hilary Perryman Martin Garratt Sue Dulan Martin Royal Ivan Smith Jen Mead Session: Businesses Organisation Bury St Edmunds Chamber of Commerce & Industry Bury Town Centre Management Country Land & Business Association Great Yarmouth & Waveney Federation of Small Business Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce & Industry Name Ruth Brady Chrissie Harrod Ben Swain Robin Twigge John McMillan Session: Voluntary Group Organisation Bury St Edmunds Volunteer Centre Ipswich Access Group Haverhill Association of Voluntary Organisation Haverhill Association of Voluntary Organisation MS Society, Newmarket Branch Scope Sikh Community Suffolk Housing Society West Suffolk Headway Name Hazel Pidsley Councillor Grant M. Smith M. Simpkin Penelope McCalmont Helen Rose S. Singh Steve Clarke David Taylor

10 Records of the Bury St Edmunds roundtable discussions on 19 th September 2008 Session: Partnerships The Chair (Max Caller) welcomed the attendees and after a series of introductions a short presentation was given on the background to the review. This was followed by a series of questions and answers both emanating from attendees as well as from members of the Boundary Committee. The issues/comments which the group highlighted during the discussion are as follows: Lowestoft: It was felt that if Lowestoft was to move from the administrative boundary of Suffolk into Norfolk, this will have an impact on the revenue and grant allocations awarded to local organisations. Two separate unitary authorities: it was felt that by having two authorities could lead to a fragmented approach when delivering services across the county. Some felt that the benefits of a county-wide unitary authority could help to harmonise the varying levels of services being offered currently and reduce the need for duplication of senior management structures. However, the concern was raised on whether or not a county-wide unitary authority really has the capacity to deliver services effectively to all and potential distance created between the people and Local Authority. Opinions were also expressed that if Ipswich is to be separated, specialist services will suffer in a rural based Unitary Authority. Links to Cambridge: views were expressed on the linkages between the west of Suffolk and Cambridge. It was felt that whatever pattern of Unitary Authorities is implemented should carry on this working relationship. Worst possible outcome(s) as a consequence of the review: Lowestoft moving to another administrative boundary; future unitary government does not recognise linkages with Cambridge; greater remoteness under a unitary authority Session: Businesses The Chair (Max Caller) welcomed the attendees and after a series of introductions a short presentation was given on the background to the review. This was followed by a series of questions and answers both emanating from attendees as well as from members of the Boundary Committee. The issues/comments which the group highlighted during the discussion are as follows: Purpose of Review: Opinions were received regarding the context of the review and how Unitary Authorities are not necessary in sparse rural areas.

11 Voice for Business: It was felt that the model of Community Boards should also contain a voice for Businesses and this sector should not be excluded in putting its views Location: Views were expressed on the need for a central location for a Unitary Authority and the draft proposal and other pattern as it stands is too remote in addressing this problem. Worst possible outcome(s) as a consequence of the review: Implementation of a single unitary authority. Session: Voluntary Groups The Chair (Max Caller) welcomed the attendees and after a series of introductions a short presentation was given on the background to the review. This was followed by a series of questions and answers both emanating from attendees as well as from members of the Boundary Committee. The issues/comments which the group highlighted during the discussion are as follows: Strategic Direction: views were expressed that a single unitary authority may bring a strategic vision in certain areas e.g. education, adult social care Rural deprivation: There was a common concern that a rural Suffolk unitary authority could face higher costs for providing services such as domiciliary care for service users living in remote parts of the county. It was felt that rural deprivation was not simply about money but providing access to services. Democratic representation: there were concerns expressed on the need for people to put themselves forward as Parish Councillors/Unitary Councillors, who could potentially be taking on the extra work load as a result of creating a Unitary Authority. Worst possible outcome(s) as a consequence of the review: implementation of three unitary authorities and the fragmentation it will cause to services; implementation of a rural Suffolk unitary authority as it will be expensive to run; implementation of a single unitary authority.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Attendees at the Lowestoft roundtable discussions on 31 st July 2008 Boundary Committee members and officers: Colin Mellors, Jane Earl, Peter Knight, Joan Jones, Alison Wildig and William Morrison Session: Partnerships Richard Perkins Acting Chair, Waveney LSP Louise Jordan-Hall Non-Executive Director, Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT Philip Watkins Chief Executive, 1 st East Session: Businesses Chris Harrod Harrod UK Christine Pinsent Chair, Beccles Business Association Margaret Thurrow Chair, Great Yarmouth and Waveney FSB Tod Sullivan The Beach radio Veronica Walters Healthcare Housing Session: Voluntary Group Bob Russell Neighbourhood Manager, Lowestoft Together Martyn Burnside Acting Chief Officer, Waveney Community Forum Penny Lockyear Great Yarmouth MIND

25 Records at the Lowestoft roundtable discussions on 31 st July 2008 Session: Partnerships It was proposed that a larger version of the wedge could be put looked at Removing large urban areas from the county (Norwich from Norfolk, Ipswich and Felixstowe in Suffolk) would remove the argument for having a unitary, as the remainder would be too weak to succeed Beccles and Bungay could also be considered as being included with Norfolk Concerns about the ability of new authorities to recruit skilled people to make them an improvement on previous arrangements Suffolk County Council has in the past year begun to better represent the interests of Waveney Session: Businesses Improvements of Suffolk CC in dealing with Lowestoft and Waveney were reiterated. Beccles as part of Norfolk was again mentioned as a possibility The dissimilarities between coastal areas in North Norfolk and those in Lowestoft were mentioned, as an argument in favour of the wedge. Political groups, their members and MPs have played a disruptive role in the process, confusing and misleading people Businesses would still operate in both Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth regardless of if they were in the same or different authorities. Some parishes were considered to not be active enough, local involvement is important Leaving Waveney intact was not a welcome idea Session: Voluntary Groups It was stated that there is an impression that Lowestoft is simply being tacked on to Norfolk Waveney was not popular as a concept The wedge received some positive support, as the urban areas within it were deemed to have good neighbourhood management. Lowestoft would be disadvantaged by moving north as it would be in competition with other similar coastal towns Due to relatively poor communications links, Lowestoft feels isolated from both counties A Great Yarmouth/Waveney authority may work if there was good local accountability and good local management. The proposal and other options seemed to give pre-eminence to economic regeneration over social and community needs. Quality of staff, the roles offered and the level of training were re-iterated as key factors for attracting people to work for the new authorities

26 Attendees at the Ipswich roundtable discussions on 1 st August 2008 Boundary Committee members and officers: Max Caller, Colin Mellors, Joan Jones (partnerships and businesses only), Peter Knight, Alison Wildig, Kalim Anwer Session: Partnerships Organisation Haven Gateway Partnership Ipswich Housing Action Group Ipswich & Suffolk Council for Racial Equality Ipswich & Suffolk Council for Racial Equality Learning & Skills Council Suffolk ACRE Suffolk Constabulary Suffolk Police Authority Suffolk Fire & Rescue Suffolk New College Suffolk Preservation Society Suffolk Strategic Partnership Suffolk Primary Care Trust Suffolk Wildlife Trust Suffolk Young People s Health Project & Young Suffolk The Suffolk Foundation University Campus Suffolk Name David Ralph Mick Allison Jane Basham Hamil Clarke Johanna Finn Ed Day Simon Ash Christopher Jackson Gary Phillips Dave Muller Alfreda Thistlethwaite Clare Euston David Kanka Julian Roughton Dawn Henry Claire Horsley Bob Anderson Session: Businesses Organisation British Telecom Federation of Small Businesses Hutchinson Ports (UK) Ltd Suffolk Agricultural Association Suffolk Chamber of Commerce Wickham Market Partnership Name Phil Dance Eddie Clarke Rachel Jackson Christopher Bushby Terry Clark Bryan Hall

27 (continued overleaf) Session: Voluntary Group Organisation Age Concern Suffolk Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich East Suffolk Mind Ipswich Society Ipswich Society Ipswich Council for Voluntary Service Optua PASTEL Community Interest Company Storm and Orwell Society Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisation Suffolk Family Carers Name Paul Baker Gavin Stone Kathleen Ben Rabha Jo Searle Jack Chapman Mike Brain Liz Louch Colin Poole Don Tricker Thomas Hill Christine Keir Jacqui Martin Records of the Ipswich roundtable discussions on 1 st August 2008 Session: Partnerships The Chair (Max Caller) welcomed the attendees and after a series of introductions a short presentation was given on the background to the review. This was followed by a series of questions and answers both emanating from attendees as well as from members of the Boundary Committee. The issues/comments which the group highlighted during the discussion are as follows: Two separate unitary authorities: it was felt that by creating two separate unitary authorities could lead to an increase in cost for county-wide services such as those provided by the Police Authority, Fire & Rescue service and Primary Care Trust. Having two authorities could also lead to a fragmented approach when delivering services across the county. Some felt that the benefits of a county-wide unitary authority could help to harmonise the varying levels of services being offered currently and could tackle countywide issues such as low educational achievement. However, the concern was raised on whether or not a county-wide unitary authority really has the capacity to deliver services effectively to all. Communication links within a rural Suffolk: Views were given on the poor communication links between either sides of the proposed rural Suffolk unitary authority e.g. from Haverhill to Southwold.

28 Real devolution: Concerns were raised on whether real power and decision making can be devolved to Parish and Town Councils under a county-wide unitary authority. The necessary resources also needed to be devolved for it to work effectively. Lowestoft: There were concerns over moving Lowestoft into Norfolk, for the reason that much of the surrounding area i.e. Beccles and Bungay look to Lowestoft. Modified boundaries: Views were also expressed on modifying the current proposed boundaries for Ipswich and Felixstowe, to follow more closely the area designated the Haven Gateway. A comment was also made that the Boundary Committee should not simply look at administrative boundary arrangements but other boundaries such as travel to study patterns. Worst possible outcome(s) as a consequence of the review: no decision being made by the Secretary of State; Lowestoft moving to another administrative boundary. Session: Businesses The Chair (Max Caller) welcomed the attendees and after a series of introductions a short presentation was given on the background to the review. This was followed by a series of questions and answers both emanating from attendees as well as from members of the Boundary Committee. The issues/comments which the group highlighted during the discussion are as follows: Economy: Views were expressed that the proposed Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority would be the 'wealth generator' of Suffolk and separating this from the rest of Suffolk would disadvantage the remaining rural areas. Transport: There was a consensus from all attendees that whatever pattern of unitary authorities is implemented, due diligence should be paid to improving transport links across the county. Transport planners should play a key role in shaping the future in this area. Agriculture: The basis of an east/west division was discussed and the rationale behind this split was primarily based on the agricultural and coastal economies of the two sides. Funding: It was deemed vital that the new authorities should be 'large' enough to able to attract funding and retain a skilled workforce to fill jobs. Worst possible outcome(s) as a consequence of the review: Process of the review has been to fast. Session: Voluntary Groups

29 The Chair (Max Caller) welcomed the attendees and after a series of introductions a short presentation was given on the background to the review. This was followed by a series of questions and answers both emanating from attendees as well as from members of the Boundary Committee. The issues/comments which the group highlighted during the discussion are as follows: Rural deprivation: There was a common concern that a rural Suffolk unitary authority could face higher costs for providing services such as domiciliary care for service users living in remote parts of the county. It was felt that rural deprivation was not simply about money but providing access to services. It was also noted that the proposed Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority also contained very rural areas and also needed to set out how to provide adequate service delivery to these areas as well as to Ipswich. Skills base: There was also a fear that the rural areas of Suffolk could suffer from a drain in skills. Lowestoft: There was a consensus that Lowestoft should remain in Suffolk as towns such as Beccles and Bungay currently look to Lowestoft. Modified boundaries: Views were also expressed on modifying the current proposed boundaries for Ipswich and Felixstowe, to follow more closely the area designated the Haven Gateway. Worst possible outcome(s) as a consequence of the review: the status quo remaining after the review has been completed.

30 Meetings held during Consultation period: 7 July - 26 September Meeting Date Time Venue Purpose Agenda Summary of Meetings Attendees BCFE Attendees Norfolk/Suffolk MPs & Peers 09 July pm Portcullis House Victoria Embankment SW1A 0AA Meeting held at the request of BCFE to brief MPs on draft proposal NO AGENDA - Presentation given Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Norman Lamb (North Norfolk LD) Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North LAB) Anthony Wright (Great Yarmouth LAB) Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk CON) Richard Bacon (South Norfolk CON) Charles Clarke (Norwich South LAB) Keith Simpson (Mid Norfolk CON) Sir Michael Lord (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich CON) John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal CON) Baroness Shepherd Baroness Hollis Colin Mellors, Max Caller, Joan Jones, Alison Wildig, Ron Johnson, Suffolk Leaders & Suffolk Chief Executives & Party Leaders 17 July pm Ipswich Town Football Club Meeting held at the request of BCFE to brief Leaders, Chief Executives & Party Leaders on draft proposal NO AGENDA - Presentation given Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Leaders, Chief Execs & Party Leaders Max Caller, Joan Jones, Ron Johnston, Robin Gray, Colin Mellors, Jane Earl, Alison Wildig, Kalim Anwer SALC Executive Board 23 July pm SALC Offices Unit 11a Hill View Business Park Old Ipswich Road Claydon Ipswich IP6 0AJ Meeting held at the request of BCFE to NO AGENDA - brief SALC Executive Presentation given Board Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Executive Board Robin Gray, Peter Knight, Kalim Anwer

31 Meetings held during Consultation period: 7 July - 26 September Roundtable Discussions held in Lowestoft 31 July pm The Hatfield Hotel Lowestoft Roundtable discussions held at the request of BCFE to listen to views from various stakeholders NO AGENDA - Presentation given - Listening to views from stakeholders Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Richard Perkins Acting Chair, Waveney LSP Louise Jordan-Hall Non-Executive Director, Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT Philip Watkins Chief Executive, 1st East Chris Harrod Harrod UK Christine Pinsent Chair, Beccles Business Association Margaret Thurrow Chair, Great Yarmouth and Waveney FSB Tod Sullivan The Beach radio Veronica Walters Healthcare Housing Bob Russell Neighbourhood Manager, Lowestoft Together Martyn Burnside Acting Chief Officer, Waveney Community Forum Penny Lockyear Great Yarmouth MIND Colin Mellors, Jane Earl, Peter Knight, Joan Jones, Alison Wildig, William Morrison Roundtable Discussions held in Ipswich 01 August pm Novotel Ipswich Roundtable discussions held at the request of BCFE to listen to views from various stakeholders NO AGENDA - Presentation given - Listening to views from stakeholders Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Haven Gateway Partnership, David Ralph Ipswich Housing Action Group, Mick Allison Ipswich & Suffolk Council for Racial Equality, Jane Basham Ipswich & Suffolk Council for Racial Equality, Hamil Clarke Learning & Skills Council, Johanna Finn Suffolk ACRE, Ed Day Suffolk Constabulary, Simon Ash Suffolk Police Authority, Christopher Jackson Suffolk Fire & Rescue, Gary Phillips Suffolk New College, Dave Muller Suffolk Preservation Society, Alfreda Thistlethwaite Suffolk Strategic Partnership, Clare Euston Suffolk Primary Care Trust, David Kanka Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Julian Roughton Suffolk Young People s Health Project & Young Suffolk, Dawn Henry The Suffolk Foundation, Claire Horsley University Campus Suffolk, Bob Anderson British Telecom, Phil Dance Federation of Small Businesses, Eddie Clarke Hutchinson Ports (UK) Ltd, Rachel Jackson Suffolk Agricultural Association, Christopher Bushby Suffolk Chamber of Commerce, Terry Clark Wickham Market Partnership, Bryan Hall Age Concern Suffolk, Paul Baker Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Gavin Stone Max Caller, Colin Mellors, Joan Jones, Peter Knight, Kalim Anwer Parish Meeting organised by Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) 01 September pm Trinity Park Felixstowe Road Ipswich Suffolk IP3 8UH Meeting held at the request of BCFE to listen to views from representatives of Parishes NO AGENDA - Presentation given Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Parishes covering the East of the County Colin Mellors, Robin Gray, Kalim Anwer

32 Meetings held during Consultation period: 7 July - 26 September Parish Meeting organised by Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) 02 September pm Red Lodge Millennium Lavender Close Red Lodge Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP28 8TT Meeting held at the request of BCFE to listen to views from representatives of Parishes NO AGENDA - Presentation given Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Parishes covering the West of the County Colin Mellors, Jane Earl, Kalim Anwer Meetings with County Council & Stakeholders 12 September pm IP City Centre 1 Bath Street Ipswich Suffolk IP2 8SD Meeting held at the request of Suffolk CC to listen to views from Stakeholders on 'One Suffolk' NO AGENDA - Listening to views from stakeholders Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' In addition handwritten notes taken by an officer of the Boundary Committee have also been attached. There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. David Sheepshanks, Chairman Stephen Singleton, Chief Executive Suffolk Community Foundation Dr Wil Gibson, Chief Executive Suffolk Action for Rural Communities Lady Clare Euston, Independent Chair Suffolk Strategic Partnership Dr Wiltshire, Chairman Ipswich Archaeological Society Dr Any Wood, Managing Director Adnams Mike Goodman, Chairman Brafe Engineering Dr Nigel Davies, Manufacturing and Technical Director Muntons Malts Bridget Taylor, Chief Executive, Customer Service Direct John Kerr, Vice Lord Lieutenant Dr Bud Simpkin, Chief Executive Young Suffolk Geoff Barton, Head Teacher King Edward VI School Alison Coleman, Chair School Governors' Forum David Stewart, Head Teacher Beacon Hill School Trevor Osbourne, Head Teacher Benjamin Britten High School Neil Watts, Head Teacher Northgate High School Dr Peter Bradley, Joint Director of Public Health Judith Mobbs, Area Director Learning and Skills Council Roy Edwards, Regional Services Manager Mencap Colin Poole, Chief Executive Optua Jacqui Martin, Chief Executive Suffolk Family Carers Max Caller, Joan Jones, Peter Knight, Jane Earl, Archie Gall, Alison Wildig Meetings with all County Council & Stakeholders 12 September pm IP City Centre 1 Bath Street Ipswich Suffolk IP2 8SD Meeting held at the request of Suffolk Authorities to discuss views on 'One Suffolk' NO AGENDA - Discussion Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Waveney: Arthur Charvonia, Asst Chief Executive Suffolk Coastal: Cllr Ray Herring (Leader) Suffolk Coastal: Tony Osmanski, Strategic Director Babergh: Pat Rockall, Chief Executive Babergh: Cllr John Hinton Babergh: Cllr Penny Clarke Babergh: Cllr Sue Wigglesworth Forest Heath: Andrew Claydon, Strategic Director St Edmundsbury: Mike Dawson, Acting Chief Exec Mid Suffolk: Andrew Good, Chief Executive Mid Suffolk: Cllr Barker Mid Suffolk: Cllr Haley Suffolk County Council: Andrea Hill Suffolk County Council: Alex Hopkins Max Caller, Joan Jones, Peter Knight, Jane Earl, Archie Gall, Alison Wildig

33 Meetings held during Consultation period: 7 July - 26 September Meetings with all County Council & Stakeholders 12 September pm IP City Centre 1 Bath Street Ipswich Suffolk IP2 8SD Meeting held at the request of Suffolk Authorities to discuss views on draft proposal AGENDA: '- Feedback from roundtables Update on broad cross section of support Boundaries - Rural County and North Haven cases Update on affordability Update on neighbourhood arrangements - Lowestoft - Economic case for North Haven Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Waveney: Arthur Charvonia, Asst Chief Executive Suffolk Coastal: Cllr Ray Herring (Leader) Suffolk Coastal: Tony Osmanski, Strategic Director Babergh: Pat Rockall, Chief Executive Babergh: Cllr John Hinton Babergh: Cllr Penny Clarke Babergh: Cllr Sue Wigglesworth Forest Heath: Andrew Claydon, Strategic Director St Edmundsbury: Mike Dawson, Acting Chief Exec Mid Suffolk: Andrew Good, Chief Executive Mid Suffolk: Cllr Barker Mid Suffolk: Cllr Haley Suffolk County Council: Andrea Hill Suffolk County Council: Alex Hopkins Max Caller, Joan Jones, Peter Knight, Jane Earl, Archie Gall, Alison Wildig - East/West and other proposals Roundtable Discussions held in Bury St Edmunds 19 September pm The Angel Hotel Bury St Edmunds Roundtable discussions held at the request of BCFE to listen to views from various stakeholders - Timetable and arrangements for next steps by BC NO AGENDA - Presentation given - Listening to views from stakeholders Records of this meeting have been saved in the document 'Summary of structural review meetings in Suffolk following publication of report on 7 July' There are no further minutes, notes or agendas for this meeting. Bury St Edmunds Society, R. Sharpe East of England Faiths Council, Paul Hills English Heritage, Natalie Tobutt Gateopener, Hilary Perryman Greater Cambridge Partnership, Martin Garratt Suffolk Criminal Justice Board, Sue Dulan Suffolk PCT, Martin Royal Suffolk Probation Area, Ivan Smith Suffolk Youth Offending Service, Jen Mead Bury St Edmunds Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Ruth Brady Bury Town Centre Management, Chrissie Harrod Country Land & Business Association, Ben Swain Great Yarmouth & Waveney Federation of Small Business, Robin Twigge Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce & Industry, John McMillan Bury St Edmunds Volunteer Centre, Hazel Pidsley Ipswich Access Group, Councillor Grant Haverhill Association of Voluntary Organisation, M. Smith Haverhill Association of Voluntary Organisation, M. Simpkin MS Society - Newmarket Branch, Penelope McCalmont Scope, Helen Rose Sikh Community, S. Singh Suffolk Housing Society, Steve Clarke West Suffolk Headway, David Taylor Max Caller, Joan Jones, Robin Gray, Kalim Anwer