Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Norfolk County Council

February 2004

2

© Crown Copyright 2004 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper.

Contents Page What is The Boundary Committee for England? 5 Summary 7

1 Introduction 19

2 Current electoral arrangements 23

3 Submissions received 29

4 Analysis and draft recommendations 31

5 What happens next? 51

Appendices A Draft recommendations for Norfolk County Council: detailed mapping 53

B Code of practice on written consultation 55

3

4

What is The Boundary Committee for England? The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3692). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them. Members of the Committee: Pamela Gordon (Chair) Professor Michael Clarke CBE Robin Gray Joan Jones CBE Ann M. Kelly Professor Colin Mellors Archie Gall (Director) We are required by law to review the electoral arrangements of every principal local authority in England. Our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to the number of councillors elected to the council, division boundaries and division names.

5

6

Summary We began a review of the electoral arrangements for Norfolk County Council on 11 March 2003. • This report summarises the submissions we received during the first stage of the

review, and makes draft recommendations for change. We found that the current arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Norfolk: • In 55 of the 84 divisions, each of which is currently represented by a single

councillor, the number of electors varies by more than 10% from the average for the county, and 25 divisions vary by more than 20%.

• By 2007 this situation is expected to deteriorate, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10% from the average in 53 divisions and by more than 20% in 32 divisions.

Our main proposals for Norfolk County Council’s future electoral arrangements (see Tables 1 and 2 and paragraphs 142–143) are: • Norfolk County Council should have 83 councillors, one less than at present,

representing 80 divisions. • As the divisions are based on district or borough wards, which have themselves

been changed as a result of recent district and borough reviews, the boundaries of all divisions are subject to change.

The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that, in future, each county councillor represents approximately the same number of electors, bearing in mind local circumstances. • In 55 of the proposed 80 divisions the number of electors per councillor would

vary by no more than 10% from the average for the county, and in 78 divisions by no more than 20% from the average.

• This level of electoral equality is expected to improve further, with the number of electors per councillor in 67 divisions expected to vary by no more than 10% from the average for the county by 2007, and in 78 divisions by no more than 20% from the average.

Recommendations are also made for changes to parish council electoral arrangements, which provide for: • Revised warding arrangements and the redistribution of councillors for the parish

of Sprowston. This report sets out draft recommendations on which comments are invited. • We will consult on these proposals for eight weeks from 24 February 2004. We

take this consultation very seriously. We may decide to move away from our draft recommendations in the light of comments or suggestions that we receive. It is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft recommendations.

• After considering local views we will decide whether to modify our draft recommendations. We will then submit our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission, which will be responsible for implementing changes to the local authority electoral arrangements.

7

• The Electoral Commission will decide whether to accept, modify or reject our final recommendations. It will also decide when any changes will come into effect.

You should express your views by writing directly to us at the address below by 26 April 2004. The Team Leader Norfolk County Council Review The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

8

Table 1: Draft recommendations: Summary

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number of councillors

Constituent district or borough wards

Breckland

1 Attleborough 1 Burgh & Haverscroft; Queen’s

2

Dereham North 1 Dereham-Humbletoft; Dereham-Neatherd; part of Springvale

& Scarning (Scarning parish)

3 Dereham South 1 Dereham-Central; Dereham-Toftwood

4

Elmham & Mattishall 1 Eynsford; Swanton Morley; Two Rivers; Upper Wensum

5

Guiltcross 1

Buckenham; East Guiltcross; Harling & Heathlands; West Guiltcross

6

Necton & Launditch

1 Hermitage; Launditch; Necton; Taverner; part of Springvale & Scarning (Fransham, Gressenhall, Longham and Wendling parishes)

7

Swaffham 1 Nar Valley; Swaffham

8

The Brecks 1 Conifer; Mid Forest; Wayland; Weeting; Wissey

9

Thetford East 1 Thetford-Castle; Thetford-Guildhall

10

Thetford West 1 Thetford-Abbey; Thetford-Saxon

11

Watton 1 Templar; Watton

12

Yare & All Saints 1 All Saints; Haggard de Toni; Shipdham; Upper Yare

Broadland 13

Acle 1 Acle; Burlingham; Marshes

14

Aylsham 1

Aylsham; part of Buxton (Brampton and Buxton with Lammas parishes)

15

Blofield & Brundall 1 Brundall; part of Blofield & South Walsham (Blofield parish)

16

Drayton & Horsford 1 Drayton North; Drayton South; Horsford & Felthorpe

17

Hellesdon 1 Hellesdon North West; Hellesdon South East

18

Hevingham & Spixworth 1

Hevingham; Spixworth with St Faith’s; part of Buxton (Frettenham parish)

19

Old Catton 1 Old Catton & Sprowston West

20 Reepham 1 Eynesford; Great Witchingham; Reepham

21

Sprowston 1

Sprowston Central; part of Sprowston East (the proposed Sprowston South East parish ward)

9

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number of councillors

Constituent district or borough wards

22

Taverham 1 Taverham North; Taverham South

23

Thorpe St Andrew 1 Plumstead; Thorpe St Andrew South East

24

Woodside

1 Thorpe St Andrew North West; part of Sprowston East (the proposed Sprowston North East parish ward)

25

Wroxham

1 Coltishall; Wroxham; part of Blofield & South Walsham (Hemblington, South Walsham, Upton with Fishley and Woodbastwick parishes)

Great Yarmouth 26

Breydon 1

Bradwell North; part of Claydon; part of Lothingland (Burgh Castle parish)

27

Caister-on-Sea 1 Caister North; Caister South

28

East Flegg 1 East Flegg; Ormesby

29

Gorleston St Andrews 1 Gorleston; St Andrews

30

Lothingland 1

Bradwell South & Hopton; part of Lothingland (Belton with Browston and Fritton & St Olaves parishes)

31

Magdalen 1 Magdalen; part Claydon

32

West Flegg 1 Fleggburgh; West Flegg

33 Yarmouth Nelson & Southtown

1 Nelson; Southtown & Cobholm

34

Yarmouth North & Central 1 Central & Northgate; Yarmouth North

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 35

Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South

1 Clenchwarton; South & West Lynn; part of West Winch (West Winch parish)

36

Dersingham

1 Dersingham; Valley Hill; part of Snettisham (Ingoldisthorpe, Shernborn and Snettisham parishes)

37

Docking 1

Docking; Heacham; Rudham; part of Snettisham (Fring and Sedgeford parishes)

38

Downham Market 1

Downham Old Town; East Downham; North Downham; South Downham

39

Feltwell 1 Denton; Denver with Hilgay; Wissey

40

Fincham

1 St Lawrence; Watlington; Wiggenhall; Wimbotsham with Fincham; part of Airfield (Runcton Holme, Shouldham Thorpe and Tottenhill parishes)

41

Freebridge Lynn 1 Grimston; North Wootton; South Wootton

10

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number of councillors

Constituent district or borough wards

42 Gayton & Nar Valley

1 Gayton; The Priories; part of Airfield (Marham, Shouldham and Wormegay parishes); part of West Winch (Middleton and North Runcton parishes)

43

Gaywood North & Central 1 Gaywood North Bank; Old Gaywood

44

Gaywood South 1 Fairstead; Springwood; Gaywood Chase

45

King’s Lynn North & Central 1 North Lynn; St Margarets with St Nicholas

4

6

Marshland North 1 Spellowfields; Walpole; Walton

47 Marshland South 1 Emneth with Outwell; Upwell with Downham West;

Mershe Lande 48

North Coast 1 Burnham; Brancaster; Hunstanton; North Coast

North Norfolk 49

Cromer 1 Cromer Town; Roughton; Suffield Park

50

Erpingham 1 Erpingham; North Walsham West; Worstead

51

Fakenham 1 Lancaster North; Lancaster South; The Raynhams

52

Holt 1

High Heath; Holt; The Runtons; part of Chaucer (East Beckham, Gresham, Matlask, Sustead, Upper Sheringham and West Beckham parishes)

53

Hoveton & Stalham 1 Hoveton; Scottow; Stalham & Sutton

54

Melton Constable 1 Astley; Briston; Corpusty; Wensum

55

Mundesley 1 Gaunt; Mundesley; Poppyland

56 North Walsham 1 Happisburgh; North Walsham East; North Walsham North

57

Sheringham 1

Sheringham North; Sheringham South; part of Chaucer (Beeston Regis parish)

58

South Smallburgh 1 St Benet; Waterside; Waxham

59

Wells 1 Glaven Valley; Priory; Walsingham

11

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number of councillors

Constituent district or borough wards

Norwich City

60 Bowthorpe

1 Bowthorpe

61

Catton Grove

1 Catton Grove

62

Crome & Thorpe Hamlet

2 Crome; part of Mancroft; part of Thorpe Hamlet

63

Eaton & Town Close

2 Eaton; Town Close; part of Mancroft

64

Lakenham

1 Lakenham

65

Mile Cross

1 Mile Cross

66

Sewell

1 Sewell; part of Thorpe Hamlet

67

University & Nelson

2 Nelson; University; part of Mancroft

68

Wensum

1 Wensum

South Norfolk

69 Clavering 1

Ditchingham & Broome; Earsham; Gillingham; Thurlton

70

Costessey 1 New Costessey; Old Costessey

71

Diss & Roydon 1 Diss; Roydon

72

East Depwade 1 Beck Vale; Harleston; Scole

73

Forehoe 1 Cromwells; Mulbarton; Newton Flotman

74

Henstead

1 Poringland with The Framinghams; Stoke Holy Cross; part of Rockland (Bramerton, Kirby Bedon and Surlingham parishes)

75

Hingham 1 Easton, Hingham & Deopham; Wicklewood

76 Humbleyard 1 Cringleford; Hethersett

77

Loddon

1 Brooke; Chedgrave & Thurton; Loddon; part of Rockland (Alpington, Hellington, Holverston, Rockland St Mary and Yelverton parishes)

12

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number of councillors

Constituent district or borough wards

78

Long Stratton 1 Hempnall; Stratton; Tasburgh

79

West Depwade 1 Bressingham & Burston; Bunwell; Dickleburgh;

Forncett

80 Wymondham 1 Abbey; Northfields; Rustens; Town

Notes 1. The constituent district wards are those resulting from the electoral reviews of the seven Norfolk

County Council districts and boroughs that were completed in 2002. Where whole district or borough wards do not form the building blocks, constituent parishes and parish wards are listed.

2. The large map inserted at the back of the report illustrates the proposed divisions outlined above and the maps in Appendix A illustrate some of the proposed boundaries in more detail.

13

Table 2 Draft recommendations for Norfolk County Council

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

Breckland

1 Attleborough

1

7,880

7,880

3

8,485

8,485

7

2

Dereham North

1

7,089

7,089

-7

7,668

7,668

-3

3

Dereham South

1

7,472

7,472

-2

8,294

8,294

5

4

Elmham & Mattishall

1

8,460

8,460

11

8,605

8,605

9

5

Guiltcross

1

7,744

7,744

2

7,974

7,974

1

6

Necton & Launditch

1

8,067

8,067

6

8,417

8,417

6

7

Swaffham

1

7,137

7,137

-6

7,408

7,408

-6

8

The Brecks 1

8,367

8,367

10

8,468

8,468

7

9

Thetford East

1

6,306

6,306

-17

7,202

7,202

-9

10

Thetford West

1

8,456

8,456

11

8,562

8,562

8

11

Watton

1

6,911

6,911

-9

7,438

7,438

-6

12

Yare & All Saints

1

7,025

7,025

-8

7,217

7,217

-9

Broadland

13 Acle

1

6,550

6,550

-14

6,995

6,995

-12

14

Aylsham

1

7,022

7,022

-8

7,584

7,584

-4

15

Blofield & Brundall

1

7,243

7,243

-5

7,431

7,431

-6

16

Drayton & Horsford

1

7,842

7,842

3

8,340

8,340

6

17

Hellesdon

1

9,119

9,119

20

9,262

9,262

17

18

Hevingham & Spixworth

1

7,013

7,013

-8

7,252

7,252

-8

19

Old Catton

1

6,200

6,200

-19

6,953

6,953

-12

20

Reepham

1

6,141

6,141

-19

6,556

6,556

-17

21

Sprowston

1

9,496

9,496

25

9,591

9,591

21

22

Taverham

1

7,766

7,766

2

8,184

8,184

4

23

Thorpe St Andrew

1

7,246

7,246

-5

8,074

8,074

2

24

Woodside

1

6,591

6,591

-13

7,215

7,215

-9

25

Wroxham

1

7,602

7,602

0

7,859

7,859

-1

14

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

Great Yarmouth

26 Breydon

1

8,172

8,172

7

8,510

8,510

8

27

Caister-on-Sea

1

7,243

7,243

-5

7,610

7,610

-4

28

East Flegg

1

7,125

7,125

-6

7,354

7,354

-7

29

Gorleston St Andrews

1

6,998

6,998

-8

7,449

7,449

-6

30

Lothingland

1

8,275

8,275

9

8,814

8,814

12

31

Magdalen

1

8,381

8,381

10

8,402

8,402

6

32

West Flegg

1

5,569

5,569

-27

5,881

5,881

-26

33

Yarmouth Nelson & Southtown

1

7,934

7,934

4

7,986

7,986

1

34

Yarmouth North & Central

1

8,444

8,444

11

8,519

8,519

8

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk

35 Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South

1

6,919

6,919

-9

7,585

7,585

-4

36

Dersingham

1

8,589

8,589

13

8,638

8,638

9

37

Docking

1

8,303

8,303

9

8,181

8,181

4

38

Downham Market

1

6,239

6,239

-18

8,167

8,167

3

39

Feltwell

1

8,720

8,720

14

8,564

8,564

8

40

Fincham

1

7,897

7,897

4

8,188

8,188

4

41

Freebridge Lynn

1

7,247

7,247

-5

7,378

7,378

-7

42

Gayton & Nar Valley

1

7,807

7,807

3

7,648

7,648

-3

43

Gaywood North & Central

1

7,318

7,318

-4

7,563

7,563

-4

44

Gaywood South

1

8,991

8,991

18

9,370

9,370

19

45

King’s Lynn North & Central

1

7,129

7,129

-6

7,122

7,122

-10

46

Marshland North

1

8,136

8,136

7

7,983

7,983

1

47

Marshland South

1

8,013

8,013

5

8,045

8,045

2

48

North Coast

1

8,478

8,478

11

8,537

8,537

8

15

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

North Norfolk

49 Cromer

1

8,239

8,239

8

8,671

8,671

10

50

Erpingham

1

6,751

6,751

-11

7,519

7,519

-5

51

Fakenham

1

7,936

7,936

4

8,783

8,783

11

52

Holt

1

7,353

7,353

-3

7,771

7,771

-2

53

Hoveton & Stalham

1

6,808

6,808

-11

7,004

7,004

-11

54

Melton Constable

1

7,526

7,526

-1

8,053

8,053

2

55

Mundesley

1

6,950

6,950

-9

7,174

7,174

-9

56

North Walsham

1

8,514

8,514

12

8,733

8,733

10

57

Sheringham

1

6,816

6,816

-11

7,145

7,145

-10

58

South Smallburgh

1

7,021

7,021

-8

7,214

7,214

-9

59

Wells

1

7,236

7,236

-5

7,375

7,375

-7

Norwich City

60 Bowthorpe

1

7,212

7,212

-5

8,204

8,204

4

61

Catton Grove

1

7,544

7,544

-1

7,585

7,585

-4

62

Crome & Thorpe Hamlet

2

15,619

7,810

3

16,585

8,293

5

63

Eaton & Town Close

2

15,969

7,985

5

15,762

7,881

0

64

Lakenham

1

7,636

7,636

0

7,113

7,113

-10

65

Mile Cross

1

7,237

7,237

-5

7,233

7,233

-8

66

Sewell

1

8,567

8,567

12

8,013

8,013

1

67

University & Nelson

2

17,695

8848

16

17,112

8,556

8

68

Wensum

1

7,789

7,789

2

7,757

7,757

-2

16

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance

from average

%

South Norfolk

69 Clavering

1

8,458

8,458

11

8,308

8,308

5

70

Costessey

1

8,049

8,049

6

8,875

8,875

12

71

Diss & Roydon

1

7,459

7,459

-2

7,643

7,643

-3

72

East Depwade

1

7,037

7,037

-8

7,272

7,272

-8

73

Forehoe

1

7,314

7,314

-4

7,798

7,798

-1

74

Henstead

1

6,702

6,702

-12

7,370

7,370

-7

75

Hingham

1

6,243

6,243

-18

6,450

6,450

-18

76

Humbleyard

1

7,715

7,715

1

8,207

8,207

4

77

Loddon

1

7,534

7,534

-1

7,468

7,468

-6

78

Long Stratton

1

7,888

7,888

4

8,271

8,271

5

79

West Depwade

1

8,348

8,348

10

8,316

8,316

5

80

Wymondham

1

8,326

8,326

9

8,739

8,739

11

Totals

83

632,163

–

–

656,051

–

–

Averages

–

–

7,616

–

–

7,904

–

Source: Electorate figures are based on Norfolk County Council’s submission. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of

electors per councillor varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

17

18

1 Introduction 1 This report contains our proposals for the electoral arrangements for the county of Norfolk, on which we are now consulting. Our review of the county is part of the programme of periodic electoral reviews (PERs) of all 386 principal local authority areas in England. This programme started in 1996 and is expected to finish in 2004. 2 In carrying out these county reviews, we must have regard to: • the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as

amended by SI 2001 No. 3692), i.e. the need to: – reflect the identities and interests of local communities; – secure effective and convenient local government; and – achieve equality of representation:

Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972: • the general duty set out in section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the

statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to:

– eliminating unlawful racial discrimination; – promoting equality of opportunity; and – promoting good relations between people of different racial groups.

3 Details of the legislation under which we work are set out in The Electoral Commission’s Guidance and Procedural Advice for Periodic Electoral Reviews (published by the EC in July 2002). This Guidance sets out our approach to the reviews. 4 Our task is to make recommendations on the number of councillors who should serve on a council, and the number, boundaries and names of electoral divisions. In each two-tier county our approach is first to complete the PERs of all the constituent districts and boroughs and, when the Orders for the resulting changes in those areas have been made, then to commence a PER of the county council’s electoral arrangements. Orders were made for the new electoral arrangements in the districts and boroughs of Norfolk in December 2002 for Breckland, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, Norwich City and South Norfolk. The orders for Broadland and North Norfolk were made in January 2003, and we are now embarking on our county review in this area. 5 Prior to the commencement of Part IV of the Local Government Act 2000, each county council division could only return one member. This restraint has now been removed by section 89 of the 2000 Act, and we may now recommend the creation of multi-member county divisions. In areas where we are unable to identify single-member divisions that are coterminous with ward boundaries and provide acceptable levels of electoral equality we will consider recommending multi-member divisions if they provide a better balance between these two factors. However, we do not expect to recommend large numbers of multi-member divisions other than, perhaps, in the more urban areas of a county. 6 Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 sets out the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements. These statutory rules state that each division should be wholly contained within a single district and that division boundaries should not split unwarded parishes or parish wards. 7 In the Guidance, The Electoral Commission states that we should wherever possible build on schemes which have been created locally on the basis of careful and effective consultation. Local people are normally in the best position to judge what council size and division configurations are most likely to secure effective and convenient local government in their areas, while also reflecting the identities and interests of local communities.

19

8 The broad objective of PERs is to achieve, as far as possible, equal representation across the local authority as a whole. Schemes which would result in, or retain, an electoral imbalance of over 10% in any division will have to be fully justified. Any imbalances of 20% or more should only arise in the most exceptional circumstances, and will require the strongest justification. 9 Similarly, we will seek to ensure that each district area within the county is allocated the correct number of county councillors with respect to the district’s proportion of the county’s electorate. 10 The Rules provide that, in considering county council electoral arrangements, we should have regard to the boundaries of district wards. We attach considerable importance to achieving coterminosity between the boundaries of divisions and wards. The term “coterminosity” is used throughout the report and refers to situations where the boundaries of county electoral divisions and district wards are the same, that is to say where county divisions comprise either one or more whole district wards. Where wards or groups of wards are not coterminous with county divisions, this can cause confusion for the electorate at local elections, lead to increased election costs and, in our view, may not be conducive to effective and convenient local government. 11 We recognise, however, that it is unlikely to be possible to achieve absolute coterminosity throughout a county area while also providing for the optimum level of electoral equality. In this respect, county reviews are different from those of districts. We will seek to achieve the best available balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, taking into account the statutory criteria. While the proportion of electoral divisions that will be coterminous with the boundaries of district wards is likely to vary between counties, we would normally expect coterminosity to be achieved in a significant majority of divisions. The average level of coterminosity secured under our final recommendations for the first eleven counties that we have reviewed (excluding the Isle of Wight) is 70%. We would normally expect to recommend levels of coterminosity of around 60% to 80%. 12 Where coterminosity is not possible in parished areas, and a district ward is to be split between electoral divisions, we would normally expect this to be achieved without dividing (or further dividing) a parish between divisions. There are likely to be exceptions to this, however, particularly where larger parishes are involved. 13 We are not prescriptive on council size. However, we believe that any proposals relating to council size, whether these are for an increase, a reduction or no change, should be supported by evidence and argumentation. Given the stage now reached in the introduction of new political management structures under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, it is important that whatever council size interested parties may propose to us they can demonstrate that their proposals have been fully thought through, and have been developed in the context of a review of internal political management and the role of councillors in the new structure. However, we have found it necessary to safeguard against upward drift in the number of councillors, and we believe that any proposal for an increase in council size will need to be fully justified. In particular, we do not accept that an increase in electorate should automatically result in an increase in the number of councillors, or that changes should be made to the size of a council simply to make it more consistent with the size of other similar councils. 14 A further area of difference between county and district reviews is that we must recognise that it will not be possible to avoid the creation of some county divisions which contain diverse communities, for example, combining rural and urban areas. We have generally sought to avoid this in district reviews in order to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Some existing county council electoral divisions comprise a number of distinct communities, which is inevitable given the larger number of electors represented by each councillor, and we would expect that similar situations would continue under our

20

recommendations in seeking the best balance between coterminosity and the statutory criteria. 15 As a part of this review we may also make recommendations for change to the electoral arrangements of parish and town councils in the county. However, we made some recommendations for new parish electoral arrangements as part of our district reviews. We therefore expect to put forward such recommendations during county reviews only on an exceptional basis. In any event, we are not able to review administrative boundaries between local authorities or parishes, or consider the establishment of new parish areas, as part of this review. The review of Norfolk County Council 16 We completed the reviews of the seven district council areas in Norfolk in July 2002, and Orders for the new electoral arrangements have since been made. This is our first review of the electoral arrangements of Norfolk County Council. The last such review was undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission, which reported to the Secretary of State in June 1984 (Report No. 472). 17 The review is in four stages (see Table 3). Table 3: Stages of the review

Stage Description

One Submission of proposals to us

Two Our analysis and deliberation

Three Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them

Four Final deliberation and report to The Electoral Commission

18 Stage One began on 11 March 2003, when we wrote to Norfolk County Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. We also notified the seven district councils in the county, Norfolk Police Authority, the Local Government Association, Norfolk County Local Councils Association, parish and town councils in the county, Members of Parliament with constituencies in the county, Members of the European Parliament for the Eastern Region and the headquarters of the main political parties. We placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and invited Norfolk County Council to publicise the review further. The closing date for receipt of submissions (the end of Stage One) was 7 July 2003. 19 At Stage Two we considered all the submissions received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations. 20 We are currently at Stage Three. This stage, which began on 24 February 2004 and will end on 26 April 2004, involves publishing the draft proposals in this report and public consultation on them. We take this consultation very seriously, and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. 21 During Stage Four we will reconsider the draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation, decide whether to modify them, and submit final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission will decide whether to accept, modify or reject our final recommendations. If The Electoral Commission accepts the recommendations, with or without modification, it will make an Order and decide when any changes come into effect.

21

Equal opportunities 22 In preparing this report the Committee has had regard to the general duty under section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote racial equality and to the approach set out in BCFE (03) 35, Race Relations Legislation, which the Committee considered and agreed at its meeting on 9 April 2003.

22

2 Current electoral arrangements 23 The county of Norfolk comprises the seven districts and boroughs of Breckland, Broadland, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, North Norfolk, Norwich City and South Norfolk. The county of Norfolk has three major centres, Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, but has a predominately rural landscape. The University of East Anglia, on the outskirts of Norwich, combines with government and independent organisations to form the Norwich Research Park – one of Europe’s largest centres of plant and food science. Good community links include an airport, Norwich Airport Ltd, and the city of Norwich attracts many visitors with its Norman cathedral, castle and numerous historic buildings. Indeed there are many tourist attractions throughout Norfolk, with waterways, marshes, heaths, coastlines and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 24 In 2002 the county had an electorate of 632,163. By 2007 this is forecast to increase by just under 4% to 656,051. The Council presently has 84 members, with one member elected from each division. The county has 529 parishes. 25 To compare levels of electoral inequality between divisions, we calculated, in percentage terms, the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each division (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the county average. In the text which follows, this figure may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’. 26 At present each councillor represents an average of 7,526 electors, which the County Council forecasts will increase to 7,810 by the year 2007 if the present number of councillors is maintained. However, due to demographic change and migration over the last two decades, the number of electors per councillor in 55 of the 84 divisions varies by more than 10% from the district average while 25 divisions vary by more than 20%. The worst imbalance is in Taverham division (Broadland district) where the councillor represents 59% more electors than the county average. 27 As detailed previously, in considering the County Council’s electoral arrangements we must have regard to the boundaries of district wards. Following the completion of the reviews of district warding arrangements in Norfolk, we are therefore faced with a new starting point for considering electoral divisions. Our proposals for county divisions will be based on the new district wards as opposed to those that existed prior to the recent reviews. In view of the effect of these new district wards and changes in the electorate over the past twenty years, which have resulted in electoral imbalances across the county, changes to most if not all of the existing county electoral divisions are inevitable.

23

Table 4: Existing electoral arrangements Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

% Breckland

1 Attleborough

1

10,441

39

11,112

42

2

Dereham East

1

8,959

19

9,887

27

3

Dereham West

1

9,044

20

9,687

24

4

Elmham & Mattishall

1

8,460

12

8,605

10

5

Guiltcross

1

7,408

-2

7,622

-2

6

Necton & Launditch

1

8,067

7

8,417

8

7

Swaffham

1

7,702

2

7,984

2

8

Thetford East

1

6,306

-16

7,202

-8

9

Thetford West

1

8,456

12

8,562

10

10

Watton

1

8,483

13

9,043

16

11

Wissey

1

7,588

1

7,617

-2

Broadland 12

Acle

1

7,069

-6

7,486

-4

13

Aylsham

1

8,175

9

8,803

13

14

Blofield & Brundall

1

8,451

12

8,723

12

15

Hellesdon

1

9,119

21

9,262

19

16

Horsford

1

4,476

-41

4,784

-39

17

Old Catton

1

7,891

5

8,140

4

18

Reepham

1

6,842

-9

7,285

-7

19

Sprowston

1

7,931

5

8,587

10

20

Taverham

1

11,967

59

12,602

61

21

Thorpe St Andrew

1

10,023

33

10,891

39

22

Woodside

1

6,659

-12

7,243

-7

23

Wroxham

1

7,228

-4

7,490

-4

Great Yarmouth 24

Caister & Great Yarmouth North

1

6,198

-18

6,507

-17

25

East Flegg

1

8,973

19

9,126

17

26

Gorleston St Andrews

1

5,446

-28

5,456

-30

27

Great Yarmouth Nelson

1

5,868

-22

5,939

-24

28

Lothingland East & Magdalen West

1

8,194

9

8,983

15

24

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

% 29

Lothingland West

1

9,422

25

9,770

25

30

Magdalen East & Claydon

1

5,293

-30

5,488

-30

31

Northgate

1

4,193

-44

4,201

-46

32

Southtown & Cobholm

1

6,435

-14

6,452

-17

33

West Flegg

1

8,119

8

8,603

10

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 34

Dersingham

1

8,690

15

8,737

12

35

Docking

1

7,690

2

7,590

-3

36

Downham Market

1

8,433

12

10,325

32

37

Feltwell

1

7,268

-3

7,133

-9

38

Fincham

1

7,580

1

7,877

1

39

Freebridge Lynn

1

9,207

22

9,300

19

40

Gaywood North & Central

1

8,968

19

9,278

19

41

Gaywood South

1

6,108

-19

6,447

-17

42

Hunstanton

1

8,784

17

8,827

13

43

King’s Lynn North & Central

1

7,129

-5

7,122

-9

44

King’s Lynn South

1

4,218

-44

4,864

-38

45

Marshland North

1

8,909

18

8,740

12

46

Marshland South

1

8,599

14

8,619

10

47

Winch

1

8,203

9

8,110

4

North Norfolk 48

Cromer

1

8,121

8

8,545

9

49

Erpingham & Melton Constable

1

7,515

0

8,048

3

50

Fakenham

1

8,560

14

9,413

21

51

Holt

1

7,493

0

7,951

2

52

Mundesley

1

8,453

12

8,748

12

53

North Smallburgh

1

8,098

8

8,255

6

54

North Walsham

1

10,159

35

10,964

40

55

Sheringham

1

8,580

14

8,925

14

56

South Smallburgh

1

7,519

0

7,779

0

57

Wells

1

6,652

-12

6,814

-13

25

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

% Norwich City 58

Bowthorpe

1

8,734

16

9,622

23

59

Catton Gate

1

5,706

-24

5,801

-26

60

Coslany

1

5,991

-20

5,776

-26

61

Cromer

1

5,094

-32

4,745

-39

62

Eaton

1

6,294

-16

5,863

-25

63

Heigham

1

5,635

-25

5,374

-31

64

Henderson

1

5,664

-25

5,777

-26

65

Lakenham

1

5,391

-28

5,054

-35

66

Mancroft

1

6,869

-9

7,939

2

67

Mile Cross

1

5,458

-27

5,413

-31

68

Mousehold

1

6,193

-18

5,841

-25

69

Nelson

1

5,569

-26

5,188

-34

70

St Stephen

1

5,611

-25

5,905

-24

71

Thorpe Hamlet

1

6,308

-16

6,600

-26

72

Town Close

1

5,354

-29

4,988

-36

73

University

1

5,397

-28

5,478

-30

26

Division name (by district or borough council area)

Number

of councillors

Electorate

(2002)

Variance

from average

%

Electorate

(2007)

Variance

from average

% South Norfolk 74

Clavering

1

7,636

1

7,480

-4

75

Costessey

1

8,049

7

8,875

14

76

Diss

1

9,353

24

9,526

22

77

East Depwade

1

8,638

15

8,864

13

78

Henstead

1

7,436

-1

8,107

4

79

Hingham

1

7,298

-3

7,526

-4

80

Humbleyard

1

7,561

0

8,066

3

81

Loddon

1

7,716

3

7,663

-2

82

Long Stratton

1

8,679

15

9,135

17

83

West Depwade

1

8,601

14

8,855

13

84

Wymondham

1

10,106

34

10,620

36

Totals

84

632,163

–

656,051

–

Averages

–

7,526

–

7,810

–

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Norfolk County Council. Note: Each division is represented by a single councillor, and the electorate columns denote the

number of electors represented by each councillor. The ‘variance from average’ column shows how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors represented by each councillor varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 2002, electors in Northgate division in Great Yarmouth borough and King’s Lynn South division in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough were relatively over-represented by 44%, while electors in Taverham division in Broadland district were significantly under-represented by 59%. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

27

28

3 Submissions received 28 At the start of this review we invited members of the public and other interested parties to write to us giving their views on the future electoral arrangements for Norfolk County Council. 29 During this initial stage of the review, officers from The Boundary Committee visited the area and met officers and members of the County Council. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 17 submissions during Stage One, including a county-wide scheme from Norfolk County Council, and these may all be inspected at our offices and those of the County Council. Norfolk County Council 30 The County Council proposed a council of 84 members, the same as at present, representing 84 single-member divisions. Its scheme was widely consulted on and provided for 69% coterminosity across the county. Initially, 22 of the proposed divisions would have electoral variances of over 10%, with three divisions having variances of over 20%. By 2007 this is forecast to improve, with 18 divisions having variances of over 10% and two divisions having variances of over 20%. District and borough councils 31 Great Yarmouth Borough Council put forward two options regarding the borough of Great Yarmouth, the preferred one of which was identical to the County Council’s proposals for the borough. Norwich City Council supported the proposals put forward by the County Council for Norwich City. Political groups 32 The North City Branch of Norwich North Liberal Democrats (the Norwich Liberal Democrats) put forward proposals for Norwich City. Its scheme provided for 20% coterminosity and excellent levels of electoral equality. Its proposals comprised three three-member divisions, one two-member and one single-member division. Parish and town councils 33 We received responses from nine parish and town councils. Brundall Parish Council (Broadland district) stated that they wished for the views of the local people to be taken into consideration. Mautby Parish Council and Stokesby with Herringby Parish Council (both Great Yarmouth borough) suggested that Fleggburgh be included in one of the adjacent rural divisions, rather than in an urban division. 34 In King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough, Denton Parish Council supported the inclusion of whole borough wards in county divisions. Heacham Parish Council supported the County Council’s initial consultation scheme for this area, but stated that the name Docking was not appropriate for one of the divisions. Little Massingham Parish Council stressed the need to include local villages with shared interests in the same divisions. 35 Sidestrand Parish Council (North Norfolk district) stated that it has no commonality with the urban ward of North Walsham North and would prefer to be included in a division with Mundesley ward. 36 In the district of South Norfolk, Poringland Parish Council stated that it would be dismayed at any proposed boundary changes. Wymondham Town Council stated that it did

29

not find it acceptable to divide one parish into three separate divisions and queried the County Council’s forecast electorate for 2007 in this area. Other representations 37 We received a further three submissions from local councillors and one from a local resident. Councillor Collishaw (Broadland district) proposed a council size of 80 members. Councillor Cobb (King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough) objected to the County Council’s proposal to combine Heacham with Docking and Rudham wards. He supported the County Council’s original proposal of combining Heacham ward with Snettisham. Councillor Joyce (King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough) put forward proposals for the borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. 38 A local resident, Mr Carruthers, commented on council size, arguing that divisions bordering neighbouring authorities should have double the average number of councillors (treble in divisions where Travel To Work Areas crossed the county boundary). Recognising that these proposals would provide electoral inequality in the affected divisions, he proposed a new electoral system to take account of this.

30

4 Analysis and draft recommendations 39 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Norfolk County Council and welcome comments from all those interested relating to the proposed division boundaries, number of councillors and division names. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. 40 As with our reviews of districts, our primary aim in considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for Norfolk is to achieve electoral equality. In doing so we have regard to section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended) which defines the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure the matters referred to in paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 (equality of representation). Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 refers to the number of electors per councillor being ‘as nearly as may be, the same in every division of the county’. 41 In relation to Schedule 11, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place over the next five years. We must also have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries and maintaining local ties, and to the boundaries of district wards. 42 We have discussed in Chapter 1 the additional parameters that apply to reviews of county council electoral arrangements and the need to have regard to the boundaries of district wards in order to achieve coterminosity. In addition, our approach is to ensure that, having reached conclusions on the appropriate number of councillors to be elected to the county council, each district council area is allocated the number of county councillors to which it is entitled. 43 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral scheme that results in exactly the same number of electors per councillor in every division of a county. 44 We accept that the achievement of absolute electoral equality for an authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, especially when also seeking to achieve coterminosity in order to facilitate convenient and effective local government, so there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach, in the context of the statutory criteria, is that such flexibility must be kept to a minimum. Accordingly, we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be minimised, the aim of electoral equality should be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested parties should make electoral equality their starting point, and then make adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as the boundaries of district wards and community identities. Five-year forecasts of changes in electorate must also be taken into account, and we would aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral equality over this five-year period. 45 The recommendations do not affect county, district or parish external boundaries, or local taxes, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that these recommendations will have an adverse effect on house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary boundaries, and we are not therefore able to take into account any representations that are based on these issues. Electorate forecasts 46 Since 1975 there has been a 29% increase in the electorate of Norfolk. The County Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2007, projecting an increase in the electorate of just under 4% from 632,163 to 656,051 over the five-year period from 2002 to

31

2007. It expects most of the growth to be in Broadland district, although a significant amount is also expected in the districts of Breckland and North Norfolk. In order to prepare these forecasts, the Council estimated rates and locations of housing development with regard to structure and local plans, the expected rate of building over the five-year period and assumed occupancy rates. 47 Wymondham Town Council queried the forecast electorate for 2007 in the district of South Norfolk. The County Council were invited to respond to this query and replied by describing how it arrived at this figure, which it then confirmed as being the best estimate currently available. It detailed how South Norfolk District Council supplied the ‘dwelling assumptions … based on completions, planning permissions and Local Plan calculations’. Allowing for vacant dwellings, the County Council then added this figure to the base electorate and adjusted ‘all parishes/part parishes pro rata to the independent district level control, which was based on [its] demographic projections of the population aged over 18,’ to give the final figure for the district. 48 We know that forecasting electorates is difficult and, having considered all the evidence received concerning electorate forecasts, we accept that the County Council’s figures are the best estimates that can reasonably be made at this time. Council size 49 As explained earlier, we now require justification for any council size proposed, whether it is an increase, decrease, or retention of the existing council size. 50 Norfolk County Council presently has 84 members. The County Council proposed retaining a council of 84 members serving 84 single-member divisions. It correctly identified council size as the starting point for its submission, and considered the role of councillors ‘in the context of the new political structures which have arisen from the modernising process’. It also undertook extensive consultation with the public (both by advertising and through a community discussion day conducted by the MORI market research organisation), finding that ‘a clear majority concluded that the present size of the County Council was about right’. 51 Councillor Collishaw (Broadland district) proposed a council size of 80 members, but provided no argumentation to support this number. Mr Carruthers stated that the number of representatives in divisions bordering neighbouring authorities should be doubled because ‘there is … a need for better co-ordination of wards that border neighbouring authorities’. He argued that the number of representatives in divisions where Travel To Work Areas crossed the county boundary should be trebled. He argued that ‘this should enable elected representatives to monitor the work of neighbouring authorities … and ensure that this is co-ordinated with the work (policies) of the authority they represent’. He considered that ‘it is apparent that existing policies of common good service providers fail to take … account [of] service provision of neighbouring authorities … and that due to lack of representation [the ability to] co-ordinate policy needs are not being met’. The example he provided was in the Waveney Valley area on the Norfolk/Suffolk border. However, he did not put forward any specific proposal for what council size would provide the best local governance for Norfolk. 52 We did not consider that we had sufficient evidence to make a decision on council size and therefore requested further evidence in support of each of these proposed council sizes. Only the County Council responded, and it provided good argumentation as to why a council of 84 councillors would provide effective local government for Norfolk. It described the council’s internal political management structure and the role of councillors in the new structure under the proposed council size. Norfolk County Council adopted a leader with cabinet form of executive in February 2002. The County Council meets in public seven times a year and ‘is the main debating forum for issues affecting Norfolk’. It receives reports from the Cabinet (among other committees), which consists of ten members and ‘meets in public monthly to make decisions on behalf of the Council’. In Norfolk there are nine cabinet

32

portfolio areas: Commercial Services; Economic Development; Education; Fire and Community Protection; Human Resources, Finance, Property and Corporate Affairs; Libraries, Museums and Arts; Planning & Transportation; Social Services; Waste Management and the Environment. 53 In addition, ‘there is a Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, five Review Panels and a Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee which, together, constitute the Council’s overview and scrutiny arrangements’. The roles and workloads of these committees and panels were detailed. The County Council also ‘appoints other committees to discharge functions which are not the responsibility of the Executive’ (some on a regulatory basis), and a Standards Committee. It has also made joint arrangements with other local authorities ‘for the exercise of certain functions’, and an example of this is the Norfolk Museums Committee. 54 The County Council continued by discussing how it is ‘playing an active role in the development of local strategic partnerships [LSPs] and community strategies across the whole of the county’. Eight LSPs, at different stages of development, are ‘being formed under each local authority’ and area forums ‘at a sub-district level are developing to address very local issues and to feed into the work of the LSPs’. It also stated that ‘it is envisaged that local county councillors will have an increasing involvement in these area arrangements’. Having detailed the aims of these roles, it added that ‘the County Council also plays a key role in influencing activities regionally and nationally through the Local Government Association, the County Councils Network and the East of England Regional Assembly.’ 55 In Norfolk, the County Council’s constitution clearly sets out the roles expected of executive and non-executive members; for example, both should ‘seek to ensure that the application of Council policies and the delivery of services in their locality meet the needs of the local community’ and ‘all members are expected to participate in the development and maintenance of good relationships with partner organisations and outside bodies’. 56 The County Council provided evidence of councillor workloads, stating that ‘the first year of the new arrangements saw 176 meetings but this is projected to increase in the current year to 255’, similar to the 238 meetings held under the old committee system. It considered that the decrease reflected ‘that the structure set up under the new arrangements was very much a basic framework and that, with time, the new methods of working have led to many more task and finish groups being established to carry out specific tasks, particularly in the scrutiny area’. The County Council argued that ‘a reduction in the size of the council would inevitably increase the workload of councillors under the present structure in terms of the need to attend meetings’. Although it recognised that the number of committees and panels could also be reduced, it concluded that ‘the present arrangements are considered to strike the right balance between having committees which allow appropriate cross-party and geographical representation … but which are not so big that they hinder effective and efficient working’. 57 It pointed out that non-executive members ‘play a vital role in scrutinising the work of the executive, reviewing service delivery provision and in contributing towards thinking on policy development’. It was therefore considered that to reduce the number of councillors would put ‘at risk the Council’s ability to adequately carry out the scrutiny and review function’. It would also affect the County Council’s representation on outside bodies and organisations. At present ‘the total number of organisations on which the Council is represented stands at over 100, with over 200 member places (some members being appointed to more than one organisation)’. The County Council stated that it was likely that it would ‘wish to extend its local member input into area forums given the increasing importance of and emphasis on local partnership working’, which would ‘inevitably add to councillors’ workloads’, and therefore a reduction in council size would be ‘unwise’.

33

58 The County Council concluded that ‘experience of the new structures in Norfolk County Council shows that the various roles expected of members are being administered effectively with the present council size’. It argued against a reduction in council size because ‘the roles expected of members now and in the future do require significant commitment from them in terms of time and workloads’. It also argued against an increase because there ‘would be considerable concern that the council could become unwieldy and more difficult to administer … [and] … there would be significant additional costs … in terms of member allowances and the provision of IT equipment’. It then drew attention to the MORI report, which also concluded that ‘the present size of council is about right and [the] primary concern was with the councillors’ ability to perform their representative role if there were fewer of them, meaning heavier workloads and larger constituencies to cover’. We were provided with a copy of this report. 59 We are satisfied that the County Council has considered the effect of the new political management structure and has given good consideration to councillors’ workloads and roles within this new structure. We noted the other two submissions regarding the number of councillors, but were not persuaded by them due to the lack of argumentation provided. Councillor Collishaw (Broadland district) proposed a reduction of four councillors, a suggestion we have considered but we are not of the opinion that sufficient argumentation was provided to justify such a decrease. 60 Whilst we have noted Mr Carruthers’ comments, we are not proposing to adopt his proposals. As he acknowledged, adopting divisions with double and treble the representation of other divisions would lead to significant electoral inequalities without the adoption of an alternative electoral system. Although Mr Carruthers proposed the adoption of such a system this is beyond the remit of this review and we have therefore been unable to have any further regard for his proposals. We also note that he did not propose any specific council size. In the further evidence the County Council supplied on council size, it addressed the issues associated with divisions at the boundary edge of the authority and the measures it took to minimise their impact. 61 However, while we have been persuaded by the County Council’s argumentation that a council size of around the existing number would provide the best local governance for Norfolk, we are not adopting the County Council’s proposal to retain the existing council size of 84. As mentioned earlier, we will seek to ensure that each district area within the county is allocated the correct number of county councillors with respect to the district’s proportion of the county’s electorate. By 2007 Norwich City will be entitled to 12 councillors, not 13 as the County Council proposed. We do not consider that there is any argumentation that would persuade us to recommend an incorrect allocation of councillors between the districts and boroughs of a county. We therefore have little alternative but to recommend a reduction of one councillor to 83, which provides the correct allocation of councillors between the districts and boroughs of the county. We also noted that Councillor Collishaw (Broadland district) proposed a reduction in council size and that the Norwich Liberal Democrats stated that the number of councillors ‘should remain approximately the same … [but it] would not object to any slight change either more or less’. There has been more local support for a slight reduction in council size than an increase. We do not consider that this reduction will have any significant impact on the County Council’s ability to fulfil its functions and consider that the County Council’s argumentation and evidence for retaining the existing council size can still apply to our proposed council size. 62 Therefore, having looked at the size and distribution of the electorate, the geography and other characteristics of the area, together with the responses received, we conclude that the statutory criteria would best be met by a council of 83 members.

34

Electoral arrangements 63 We are broadly basing our recommendations on the County Council’s single-member scheme as we consider it to provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. We are, however, proposing some minor amendments to division boundaries, and are putting forward our own proposals for Norwich City, incorporating parts of both the County Council’s and Norwich Liberal Democrats’ submissions for that city. 64 We are adopting without modification the County Council’s proposals for Breckland, North Norfolk and South Norfolk districts and Great Yarmouth borough. We note the local support these proposals have received and consider that they provide for both good electoral equality and coterminosity. We are proposing two amendments to the County Council’s proposals for Broadland district to provide a better balance between coterminosity and electoral equality. We are also proposing two amendments to the County Council’s scheme for the borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, to improve coterminosity. Although we considered Councillor Joyce’s scheme for this borough, his proposals provided the borough with 15 councillors when, under our proposed council size of 83, it is only entitled to 14. It has therefore been difficult to adopt any of Councillor Joyce’s proposals. We noted the opposition to the County Council’s scheme for this borough from Councillor Joyce, Councillor Cobb and Heacham Parish Council, but have not been persuaded to depart significantly from the County Council’s proposals as they provide good coterminosity and excellent electoral equality across the borough. This will be discussed in more detail in the relevant section. 65 As previously discussed, we are unable to adopt the County Council’s proposals for Norwich City in full, as it allocates 13 councillors to the city when, by 2007, it will be entitled to 12. The Norwich Liberal Democrats provided an alternative scheme with a pattern of multi-member divisions based on 12 councillors for the city. However, their proposals provided only 20% coterminosity and we consider that they did not fully justify three three-member divisions. We are therefore proposing a combination of the two schemes, resulting in 56% coterminosity and no division having an electoral variance of over 10% from the average by 2007. Under our draft recommendations there are six single-member divisions and three two-member divisions in Norwich City. As there are 13 wards in the city and it is entitled to 12 county councillors it is hard to envisage any way of providing both good electoral equality and coterminosity without making use of multi-member divisions. 66 We received a submission from Mr Carruthers proposing doubling or trebling the number of councillors representing divisions which lie on the edge of the county. He also proposed reforms to the voting system in Norfolk whereby the votes of an elected representative in committee would reflect the size of their constituency. However, although we are grateful to Mr Carruthers for submitting his views, many of his comments were beyond the remit of this review and we were therefore unable to have further regard to them. 67 We have carefully considered all the representations received. We are proposing a reduction in the council size from 84 to 83 and are proposing a scheme of 80 divisions comprising three two-member and 77 single-member divisions. The draft recommendations provide for improved electoral equality, with the number of divisions where the number of electors per councillor would vary by more than 10% from the county average by 2007 reduced from 53 to 13. Coterminosity between the district and borough wards and county divisions would be 70% under the draft recommendations. 68 Our proposals would also involve re-warding the parish of Sprowston, in order to facilitate a good balance between electoral equality and community identity. This was proposed locally by the County Council and is detailed in the parishing arrangements section at the end of this chapter. For county division purposes, the seven district and borough areas in the county are considered in turn, as follows:

35

i. Breckland district (page 36) ii. Broadland district (page 37) iii. Great Yarmouth borough (page 39) iv. King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough (page 41) v. North Norfolk district (page 43) vi. Norwich City (page 45) vii. South Norfolk district (page 47) 69 Details of our draft recommendations are set out in Tables 1 and 2, and on the large map inserted at the back of this report. Breckland district 70 Under the current arrangements the district of Breckland is represented by 11 county councillors serving 11 divisions. Attleborough, Dereham East, Dereham West, Elmham & Mattishall, Necton & Launditch, Swaffham, Thetford West and Watton divisions have councillor:elector ratios 39%, 19%, 20%, 12%, 7%, 2%,12% and 13% above the county average respectively (42%, 27%, 24%, 10%, 8%, 2%, 10% and 16% above the average by 2007). The divisions of Guiltcross and Thetford East have councillor:elector ratios 2% and 16% below the county average respectively (2% and 8% below the average by 2007). Wissey division has a councillor:elector ratio 1% above the county average (2% below the average by 2007). 71 Under a council size of 83 the district of Breckland is entitled to 12 councillors. We only received one submission regarding this area, that from the County Council. Its single-member scheme would provide for a good balance between the statutory criteria, with 83% coterminosity and no division having an electoral variance of more than 10% from the average by 2007. 72 The County Council’s proposed Attleborough division would consist of Burgh & Haverscroft and Queen’s wards. Its proposed Dereham North division would consist of Dereham-Humbletoft and Dereham-Neatherd wards and Scarning parish from Springvale & Scarning ward, while its proposed Dereham South division would consist of Dereham-Central and Dereham-Toftwood wards. The proposed Elmham & Mattishall division would consist of Eynsford, Swanton Morley, Two Rivers and Upper Wensum wards, and the proposed Guiltcross division would consist of Buckenham, East Guiltcross, Harling & Heathlands and West Guiltcross wards. Its proposed Necton & Launditch division would comprise Hermitage, Launditch, Necton and Taverner wards as well as Fransham, Gressenhall, Longham and Wending parishes from Springvale & Scarning ward. 73 The County Council’s proposed Swaffham division would consist of Nar Valley and Swaffham wards and its proposed The Brecks division would comprise Conifer, Mid Forest, Wayland, Weeting and Wissey wards. Its proposed Thetford East division would consist of Thetford-Castle and Thetford-Guildhall wards, and its proposed Thetford West division would comprise Thetford-Abbey and Thetford-Saxon wards. Its proposed Watton division would comprise Templar and Watton wards, and its proposed Yare & All Saints division would consist of All Saints, Haggard de Toni, Shipdham and Upper Yare wards. 74 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) the divisions of Attleborough, Elmham & Mattishall, Guiltcross, Necton & Launditch, The Brecks and Thetford West would have councillor:elector ratios 5%, 12%, 3%, 7%, 11% and 12% above the county average respectively (9%, 10%, 2%, 8%, 8% and 10% above the average by 2007). Dereham North, Swaffham, Thetford East, Watton and Yare & All Saints divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 6%, 5%, 16%, 8% and 7% below the county average respectively (2%, 5%, 8%, 5% and 8% below the average by 2007). Dereham South division would have a councillor:elector ratio 1% below the county average (6% above the average by 2007).

36

75 We propose to adopt the County Council’s scheme for Breckland district in its entirety as it provides for both good electoral equality and coterminosity and we have received no other proposals. There is one proposed division, Dereham North, where the links between Dereham-Humbletoft ward and Scarning parish look to be tenuous on paper. However, having visited the area, we are content to recommend this division as Dereham Road provides a strong link between the wards, there is further access by foot and it reflects the access route of the sewage works. 76 In the district of Breckland two of the proposed divisions are not coterminous. These are the proposed Dereham North and Necton & Launditch divisions, but they provide excellent electoral equality. 77 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) the divisions of Attleborough, Elmham & Mattishall, Guiltcross, Necton & Launditch, The Brecks and Thetford West would have councillor:elector ratios 3%, 11%, 2%, 6%, 10% and 11% above the county average respectively (7%, 9%, 1%, 6%, 7% and 8% above the average by 2007). Dereham North, Swaffham, Thetford East, Watton and Yare & All Saints divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 7%, 6%, 17%, 9% and 8% below the county average respectively (3%, 6%, 9%, 6% and 9% below the average by 2007). Dereham South would have a councillor:elector ratio 2% below the county average (5% above the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would provide 83% coterminosity between county divisions and district wards and are illustrated on the large map at the back of the report. Broadland district 78 Under the current arrangements the district of Broadland is represented by 12 county councillors serving 12 divisions. The divisions of Aylsham, Blofield & Brundall, Hellesdon, Old Catton, Sprowston, Taverham and Thorpe St Andrew have councillor:elector ratios 9%, 12%, 21%, 5%, 5%, 59% and 33% above the county average respectively (13%, 12%, 19%, 4%, 10%, 61% and 39% above the average by 2007). Acle, Horsford, Reepham, Woodside and Wroxham divisions have councillor:elector ratios 6%, 41%, 9%, 12% and 4% below the county average respectively (4%, 39%, 7%, 7% and 4% below the average by 2007). 79 Under a council size of 83 the district of Broadland is entitled to 13 councillors. Again we only received one scheme regarding this district, that from the County Council. Its proposals would provide for 38% coterminosity, with four divisions having electoral variances of over 10% from the average by 2007 (one over 20%). 80 The County Council’s proposed Acle division would comprise Acle, Burlingham and Marshes wards, while its proposed Aylsham division would consist of Aylsham ward and Brampton and Buxton with Lammas parishes from Buxton ward. Its proposed Blofield & Brundall division would comprise Brundall ward and Blofield parish of Blofield & South Walsham ward. Its proposed Drayton & Horsford division would comprise Drayton North and Drayton South wards and Horsford parish of Horsford & Felthorpe ward. Its proposed Hellesdon division would consist of Hellesdon North West and Hellesdon South East wards, while its proposed Hevingham & Spixworth division would comprise Hevingham and Spixworth with St Faith’s wards, Frettenham parish of Buxton ward and Crostwick and Horstead with Stanninghall parishes from Coltishall ward. The County Council’s proposed Old Catton division would consist of Old Catton & Sprowston West ward. 81 The County Council’s proposed Reepham division would comprise Eynesford, Great Witchingham and Reepham wards and Felthorpe parish of Horsford & Felthorpe ward. Sprowston division would consist of Sprowston Central ward and part of Sprowston East parish ward of Sprowston parish. Its proposed Taverham division would comprise Taverham North and Taverham South wards, while its proposed Thorpe St Andrew division would consist of Plumstead and Thorpe St Andrew South East wards. Its proposed Woodside

37

division would consist of Thorpe St Andrew North West ward and part of Sprowston East parish ward of Sprowston parish. Its proposed Wroxham division would comprise Wroxham ward, Hemblington, South Walsham, Upton with Fishley and Woodbastwick parishes from Blofield & South Walsham ward and Coltishall parish of Coltishall ward. 82 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) the divisions of Hellesdon, Hevingham & Spixworth, Sprowston and Taverham would have councillor:elector ratios 21%, 5%, 26% and 3% above the county average respectively (19%, 5%, 23% and 5% above the average by 2007). Acle, Aylsham, Blofield & Brundall, Drayton & Horsford, Old Catton, Reepham, Woodside and Wroxham divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 13%, 7%, 4%, 3%, 18%, 11%, 12% and 11% below the county average respectively (10%, 3%, 5%, 1%, 11%, 9%, 8% and 11% below the average by 2007). Thorpe St Andrew division would have a councillor:elector ratio 4% below the county average (3% above the average by 2007). 83 We propose to adopt the County Council’s scheme for Broadland with one amendment to improve coterminosity and one to improve electoral equality. The first amendment is to transfer Felthorpe parish from the proposed Reepham division to the proposed Drayton Horsford division to unite Horsford & Felthorpe ward in the latter division. Having visited the area, we consider that there are good links between the constituent parts of Horsford & Felthorpe ward and that the better reflection of community identity justifies the resultant electoral inequality in the proposed Reepham division (-17% from the average by 2007). However, we are proposing a further amendment to improve electoral equality elsewhere in the district. We propose transferring Crostwick and Horstead with Stanninghall parishes from Coltishall ward in the proposed Hevingham & Spixworth division to an amended Wroxham division. This does not affect coterminosity but improves electoral equality and would provide two divisions with electoral variances of under 8% by 2007. The River Bure and Belaugh Broad do restrict access between the constituent parts of the proposed Wroxham division but, having visited the area, we are satisfied that Wroxham Road in the north and the junction of Dobbs’ Lane, Primrose Lane and Rackheath Lane in the south provide reasonable transport links between the two parts of the division. 84 Under the County Council’s proposals Sprowston parish would be divided into four parish wards (there are three at present). This is so that part of Sprowston East parish ward can be included in the proposed Woodside division and part in Sprowston division. Although we do not generally seek to ward parishes as part of a county review, we accept that it will be necessary in some instances, and in this case we consider that further warding of Sprowston parish would facilitate the development of a scheme that provides a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity across the district. Consequently we are proposing that Sprowston East parish ward be divided into the proposed Sprowston South East parish ward (to be included in the proposed Sprowston division and to be represented by seven parish councillors) and the proposed Sprowston North East parish ward (to be included in the proposed Woodside division and to be represented by one parish councillor). This is discussed further in the parishing section at the end of this report. 85 In relation to the County Council’s proposed Thorpe St Andrew division we acknowledge the anomaly of Thorpe St Andrew South East ward, with a section of it being detached. A section of Thorpe St Andrew South East ward is separated from the rest of Thorpe St Andrew South East ward by a branch of the River Yare, which is part of Norwich City. The County Council proposed that both parts of this ward be included in the proposed Thorpe St Andrew division, and we concur that this arrangement best reflects the identities and interests of the local community as the two parts are retained within the same division. It is also important to note that the detached section lies at the edge of the district and there is little scope to address this anomaly as it would require amending the external boundary of the district, something that is beyond the remit of this review.

38

86 In the district of Broadland we are proposing six non-coterminous divisions: Aylsham, Blofield & Brundall, Hevingham & Spixworth, Sprowston, Woodside and Wroxham. We noted that the County Council’s scheme was widely consulted on and grouped similar communities in single divisions. The mixture of urban and rural areas makes achieving a high level of coterminosity difficult, and we consider that the draft recommendations provide the best balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. 87 In Broadland district we are proposing a Hellesdon division (as put forward by the County Council) that would have an electoral variance of 17% by 2007. This is because an adjacent district borders the division on three sides, which, combined with the need to maintain local community ties, leaves little scope to reduce this variance. The proposed Sprowston division would have an electoral variance of 21% by 2007. The County Council consulted widely on two options for this area, and the majority of interested parties preferred the first option, which the County Council therefore recommended to the Boundary Committee. It argued that this option ‘ensures that the community spirit and local ties are maintained’, the alternative being an arbitrary division through Sprowston itself. In light of this, we consider that the former option provides the best reflection of the statutory criteria and so propose to adopt it as part of our draft recommendations. 88 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) the divisions of Drayton & Horsford, Hellesdon, Sprowston and Taverham would have councillor:elector ratios 3%, 20%, 25% and 2% above the county average respectively (6%, 17%, 21% and 4% above the average by 2007). Acle, Aylsham, Blofield & Brundall, Hevingham & Spixworth, Old Catton, Reepham and Woodside divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 14%, 8%, 5%, 8%, 19%, 19% and 13% below the county average respectively (12%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 12%, 17% and 9% below the average by 2007). Thorpe St Andrew division would have a councillor:elector ratio 5% below the county average (2% above the average by 2007). Wroxham division would have a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average (1% below the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would achieve 54% coterminosity between county divisions and district wards and are illustrated on the large map and on map 1 at the back of the report. Great Yarmouth borough 89 Under the current arrangements the borough of Great Yarmouth is represented by 10 county councillors serving 10 divisions. The divisions of East Flegg, Lothingland East & Magdalen West, Lothingland West and West Flegg have councillor:elector ratios 19%, 9%, 25% and 8% above the county average respectively (17%, 15%, 25% and 10% above the average by 2007). The divisions of Caister & Great Yarmouth North, Gorleston St Andrews, Great Yarmouth Nelson, Magdalen East & Claydon, Northgate and Southtown & Cobholm divisions have councillor:elector ratios 18%, 28%, 22%, 30%, 44% and 14% below the county average respectively (17%, 30%, 24%, 30%, 46% and 17% below the average by 2007). 90 Under a council size of 83 the borough of Great Yarmouth is entitled to nine councillors. We received four submissions regarding this area. The first was from the County Council and its scheme would provide for 67% coterminosity with only two wards having electoral variances of over 10% by 2007 (one over 20%). 91 The County Council’s proposed Breydon division would comprise Bradwell North ward, Burgh Castle parish of Lothingland ward and an unparished part of Claydon ward. Its proposed Caister-on-Sea division would consist of Caister North and Caister South wards, while East Flegg division would comprise East Flegg and Ormesby wards. Its proposed Gorleston St Andrews division would comprise Gorleston and St Andrews wards, while its proposed Lothingland division would consist of Bradwell South & Hopton ward and Belton with Browston and Fritton & St Olaves parishes from Lothingland ward.

39

92 Its proposed Magdalen division would comprise Magdalen ward and an unparished part of Claydon ward, while its proposed West Flegg division would consist of Fleggburgh and West Flegg wards. Its proposed Yarmouth Nelson & Southtown division would comprise Nelson and Southtown & Cobholm wards, and Yarmouth North & Central division would consist of Central & Northgate and Yarmouth North wards. 93 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) the divisions of Breydon, Lothingland, Magdalen, Yarmouth Nelson & Southtown and Yarmouth North & Central would have councillor:elector ratios 9%, 10%, 11%, 5% and 12% above the county average respectively (9%,13%, 8%, 2% and 9% above the average by 2007). Its proposed Caister-on-Sea, East Flegg, Gorleston St Andrews and West Flegg divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 4%, 5%, 7% and 26% below the county average respectively (3%, 6%, 5% and 25% below the average by 2007). 94 Great Yarmouth Borough Council submitted two schemes. Its preferred option comprised the same divisions put forward by the County Council, although it proposed six different division names. Its second option also proposed nine single-member divisions which provided for 33% coterminosity across the borough with three of the proposed divisions having electoral variances of over 10% by 2007. Mautby Parish Council and Stokesby with Herringby Parish Council both proposed that Fleggburgh ward be included in a rural division. 95 We propose to adopt the County Council’s scheme for Great Yarmouth in its entirety, together with the division names it proposed as they have been consulted on locally. We note that the County Council’s proposals account for the concerns of Mautby Parish Council and Stokesby with Herringby Parish Council, while providing a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. We also note the support of Great Yarmouth Borough Council for these proposed divisions. 96 In the borough of Great Yarmouth three of our proposed divisions, Breydon, Lothingland and Magdalen, are not coterminous. However, these divisions facilitate our proposals for the rest of the borough, which have received local support, and are relatively urban, thus ensuring that transport links within each division are good. 97 We are proposing a West Flegg division that will have an electoral variance of -26% by 2007. The County Council stated that it had received a high level of responses to its consultation on this borough. Interested parties have ‘argued for more emphasis to be placed on local communities and to consider the constraints of local geography’. It therefore considered that the variance of West Flegg ‘can be justified on the grounds that it is a very large rural area which makes it more difficult to provide effective representation’. We note this and would add that this division facilitates our proposals for the rest of the borough, which have received local support. We also note that local parishes in the area have argued that they should be included in a rural division to reflect community identities. We looked at alternatives to reduce the high variances in this proposed division but any alternative would have knock-on effects across the borough and, in the light of local support for this division and the good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity across the rest of the borough that the adoption of such a division provides, we have decided to adopt the proposed West Flegg division. 98 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) the divisions of Breydon, Lothingland, Magdalen, Yarmouth Nelson & Southtown and Yarmouth North & Central would have councillor:elector ratios 7%, 9%, 10%, 4% and 11% above the county average respectively (8%,12%, 6%, 1% and 8% above the average by 2007). The divisions of Caister-on-Sea, East Flegg, Gorleston St Andrews and West Flegg would have councillor:elector ratios 5%, 6%, 8% and 27% below the county average respectively (4%, 7%, 6% and 26% below the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would achieve

40

67% coterminosity between county divisions and borough wards and are illustrated on the large map and on map 2 at the back of the report. King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough 99 Under the current arrangements the borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is represented by 14 county councillors serving 14 divisions. The divisions of Dersingham, Downham Market, Fincham, Freebridge Lynn, Gaywood North & Central, Hunstanton, Marshland North, Marshland South and Winch have councillor:elector ratios 15%, 12%, 1%, 22%, 19%, 17%, 18%, 14% and 9% above the county average respectively (12%, 32%, 1%, 19%, 19%, 13%, 12%, 10% and 4% above the average by 2007). Feltwell, Gaywood South, King’s Lynn North & Central and King’s Lynn South divisions have councillor:elector ratios 3%, 19%, 5% and 44% below the county average respectively (9%, 17%, 9% and 38% below the average by 2007). Docking division has a councillor:elector ratio 2% above the county average (3% below the average by 2007). 100 Under a council size of 83 the borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is entitled to 14 councillors. We received six submissions regarding this area, including two borough-wide schemes, the first being from the County Council. This scheme would provide for 36% coterminosity across the borough and one division would have an electoral variance of over 10% by 2007. 101 The County Council’s proposed Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South division would comprise Clenchwarton and South & West Lynn wards and West Winch parish of West Winch ward. Its proposed Dersingham division would consist of Dersingham and Valley Hill wards and Ingoldisthorpe, Shernborne and Snettisham parish wards from Snettisham ward. Its proposed Docking division would comprise Docking, Heacham and Rudham wards and Fring and Sedgeford parishes from Snettisham ward. Its proposed Downham Market division would consist of Downham Old Town, East Downham, North Downham and South Downham wards, while Feltwell division would comprise Denton, Denver with Hilgay and Wissey wards. Its proposed Fincham division would comprise St Lawrence, Watlington, Wiggenhall and Wimbotsham with Fincham wards and Runcton Holme, Shouldham Thorpe and Tottenhill parishes from Airfield ward. Its proposed Freebridge Lynn division would comprise Grimston, North Wootton and South Wootton wards. 102 The County Council’s proposed Gayton & Nar Valley division would consist of Gayton and The Priories wards, Marham, Shouldham and Wormegay parishes from Airfield ward and Middleton and North Runcton parishes from West Winch ward. Its proposed Gaywood North & Central division would comprise Gaywood North Bank and Old Gaywood wards, while Gaywood South division would consist of Fairstead and Springwood wards and an unparished part of Gaywood Chase ward. King’s Lynn North & Central division would consist of North Lynn and St Margarets with St Nicholas wards and an unparished part of Gaywood Chase ward. Its proposed Marshland North division would comprise Spellowfields, Walpole and Walton wards and North Walsoken parish of Mershe Lande ward. Its proposed Marshland South division would comprise Emneth with Outwell and Upwell with Downham West wards and Marshland St James parish of Mershe Lande ward. Finally, its proposed North Coast division would consist of Burnham, Hunstanton and North Coast wards. 103 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) the divisions of Dersingham, Docking, Feltwell, Fincham, Gaywood South, King’s Lynn North & Central, Marshland North, Marshland South and North Coast would have councillor:elector ratios 14%, 10%, 16%, 5%, 7%, 7%, 10%, 4% and 13% above the county average respectively (11%, 5%, 10%, 5%, 9%, 3%, 4%, 1% and 9% above the average by 2007). Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South, Freebridge Lynn and Gaywood North & Central divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 8%, 4% and 3% below the county average respectively (3%, 6% and 3% below the average by 2007). Downham Market division would have a councillor:elector ratio 17% below the county average (5% above by 2007) and Gayton & Nar Valley division

41

would have a councillor:elector ratio 4% above the county average (2% below the average by 2007). 104 We also received a scheme for the borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk from Councillor Joyce (Gaywood South division) allocating 15 councillors to the borough. Councillor Joyce did not provide names for his proposed divisions. The first division would comprise Brancaster, Burnham and Hunstanton wards and the second would consist of Heacham and Snettisham wards. The third division would consists of Dersingham, Docking and Rudham wards, while the fourth division would comprise Gayton, Grimston, Priory and Valley Hill wards. His proposed fifth division would comprise North Wootton and South Wootton wards and an unparished part of Gaywood North Bank ward. His sixth proposed division would consist of Old Gaywood and Springwood wards and an unparished part of Gaywood North Bank ward. The seventh division would comprise Fairstead and Gaywood Chase wards, and the eighth would consist of South & West Lynn and West Winch wards. The ninth division would comprise Clenchwarton, Spellowfields and Walpole wards. The tenth division would comprise North Lynn and St Margaret’s with St Nicholas wards, and the eleventh division would consist of Mershe Lande, St Lawrence, Walton and Wiggenhall wards. His proposed twelfth division would comprise Emneth with Outwell and Upwell with Delph wards, and the thirteenth division would consist of Denton and Hilgay wards. The fourteenth division would comprise Downham Market ward, and the fifteenth would consist of Airfield, Watlington, Wimbotsham with Fincham and Wissey wards. 105 Councillor Joyce did not provide us with figures for these proposed divisions, but stated that they would ‘all … stay within the tolerances of 20% and in most cases 10%’. He argued that the County Council’s proposals would divide communities ‘without regard to generations of cohesion’ and stated that it had ‘totally ignored the views of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk that unanimously agreed to West Norfolk being allocated 15 county council divisions’. However, under our proposed council size of 83 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is only entitled to 14 councillors. It has therefore been difficult for us to adopt any of Councillor Joyce’s proposed divisions as they are based on a different councillor:elector ratio and therefore would have high variances when considered against the councillor:elector ratio that arises from a council size of 83. 106 Under a council size of 83 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is only entitled to 14 councillors by 2007. As mentioned earlier, we will seek to ensure that each district area within the county is allocated the correct number of county councillors with respect to the district’s proportion of the county’s electorate. There is no argumentation that we would accept for providing for the incorrect allocation of councillors between districts, as detailed in our Guidance. Indeed council size and the correct allocation of councillors across the county is the staring point for any review of electoral arrangements. It is therefore difficult for us to adopt any of Councillor Joyce’s proposed divisions although we are grateful for the work he has put into his submission. 107 Heacham Parish Council and Councillor Cobb (Heacham ward) supported the County Council’s consultation scheme. Councillor Cobb stated that the County Council’s submitted proposal had ‘Heacham, a coastal village, joined by a narrow Sedgeford corridor to a huge wedge of rural hinterland, a full 15 miles from one end to the other. It is a most unnatural and unwieldy combination.’ It supported the County Council’s consultation scheme of ‘combining [Heacham] ward with Snettisham [ward], because the existing combination of Heacham with Hunstanton is not a natural one; the two communities are very different, and their interests do not always coincide. Heacham and Snettisham on the other hand have much in common, and many shared interests, so the original proposal was natural and welcome – and in fact returned to the pre-1974 situation’. Denton Parish Council stated that ‘it would be preferable to include whole district wards within the county division’. Little Massingham Parish Council advocated the view that community identity is ‘more important to local people than strict equality of representation’. It argued that ‘local villages [which] share common interests’ should be grouped together, reflecting links such ‘as schooling,

42

religious worship, recreation, public transport and shopping’. However, it provided no specific divisional arrangement for the borough. 108 We are basing our proposals on the County Council’s submitted scheme as it provides for good coterminosity throughout the borough and a good level of electoral equality. We investigated the possibility of including Heacham in a division with Snettisham, as proposed in the County Council’s consultation scheme, but could not justify the resultant electoral inequality. 109 However, we are proposing two amendments to the County Council’s scheme to improve coterminosity. First, we propose that the part of Mershe Lande ward which was to form part of the County Council’s proposed Marshland North division be transferred to the proposed Marshland South division – which results in both divisions being coterminous with excellent levels of electoral equality. Second, we propose that the part of Gaywood Chase ward included in the County Council’s proposed King’s Lynn North and Central division be transferred to the proposed Gaywood South division to unite Gaywood Chase ward in the latter division. We consider that the improved coterminosity and better reflection of community identity provided by this amendment justifies the resultant electoral inequality in Gaywood South division (19% by 2007), but would welcome representations from local people at Stage Three. 110 In the borough of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk we are proposing five non-coterminous divisions: Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South, Dersingham, Docking, Fincham and Gayton & Nar Valley. We consider these to be justified by the excellent levels of electoral equality provided across the borough, with only one division, Gaywood South, varying by more than 10% from the average by 2007. We investigated the possibility of making the proposed Dersingham and Docking divisions coterminous (taking into account the submissions received from Heacham Parish Council and Councillor Cobb) but this would result in the divisions having electoral variances of -27% and 40% from the average respectively by 2007 and we did not consider these very high variances to be justified by the argumentation and evidence provided. 111 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) the divisions of Dersingham, Docking, Feltwell, Fincham, Gaywood South, Marshland North, Marshland South and North Coast would have councillor:elector ratios 13%, 9%, 14%, 4%, 18%, 7%, 5% and 11% above the county average respectively (9%, 4%, 8%, 4%, 19%, 1%, 2% and 8% above the average by 2007). Clenchwarton & King’s Lynn South, Freebridge Lynn, Gaywood North & Central and King’s Lynn North & Central divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 9%, 5%, 4% and 6% below the county average respectively (4%, 7%, 4% and 10% below the average by 2007). Downham Market division would have a councillor:elector ratio 18% below the county average (3% above the average by 2007) and Gayton & Nar Valley division would have a councillor:elector ratio 3% above the county average (3% below the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would achieve 64% coterminosity between county divisions and borough wards and are illustrated on the large map at the back of the report. North Norfolk district 112 Under the current arrangements the district of North Norfolk is represented by 10 county councillors serving 10 divisions. The divisions of Cromer, Fakenham, Mundesley, North Smallburgh, North Walsham and Sheringham have councillor:elector ratios 8%, 14%, 12%, 8%, 35% and 14% above the county average respectively (9%, 21%, 12%, 6%, 40% and 14% above the average by 2007). Wells division has councillor:elector ratio 12% below the county average (13% below the average by 2007). The divisions of Erpingham & Melton Constable and Holt have councillor:elector ratios equal to the county average (3% and 2% above the average by 2007). South Smallburgh has a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average, both initially and by 2007.

43

113 Under a council size of 83 the district of North Norfolk is entitled to 11 councillors. We received two submissions regarding this district. The County Council’s proposals would provide for 82% coterminosity, with no division having an electoral variance of over 12% from the average by 2007. 114 The County Council’s proposed Cromer division would comprise Cromer Town, Roughton and Suffield Park wards, while its proposed Erpingham division would consist of Erpingham, North Walsham West and Worstead wards. Its proposed Fakenham division would consist of Lancaster North, Lancaster South and The Raynhams wards, while its proposed Holt division would comprise High Heath, Holt and The Runtons wards together with East Beckham, Gresham, Matlask, Sustead, Upper Sheringham and West Beckham parishes from Chaucer ward. Its proposed Hoveton & Stalham division would consist of Hoveton, Scottow and Stalham & Sutton wards, while its proposed Melton Constable division would comprise Astley, Briston, Corpusty and Wensum wards. 115 The County Council’s proposed Mundesley division would consist of Gaunt, Mundesley and Poppyland wards, while its proposed North Walsham division would comprise Happisburgh, North Walsham East and North Walsham North wards. Its proposed Sheringham division would comprise Sheringham North and Sheringham South wards and Beeston Regis parish of Chaucer ward. Its proposed South Smallburgh division would consist of St Benet, Waterside and Waxham wards, while its proposed Wells division would comprise Glaven Valley, Priory and Walsingham wards. 116 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) the divisions of Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham would have councillor:elector ratios 9%, 5% and 13% above the county average respectively (11%, 12% and 12% above the average by 2007). Its proposed Erpingham, Holt, Hoveton & Stalham, Mundesley, Sheringham, South Smallburgh and Wells divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 10%, 2%, 10%, 8%, 9%, 7% and 4% below the county average respectively (4%, 1%, 10%, 8%, 9%, 8% and 6% below the average by 2007). Its proposed Melton Constable division would have a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average (3% above the average by 2007). 117 Sidestrand Parish Council argued that Sidestrand be included in a division that encompasses Mundesley and not North Walsham North ward. We propose adopting the County Council’s scheme for this district without modification as we consider it provides a good balance between coterminosity and electoral equality and we have received no other proposals. This scheme would reflect the request of Sidestrand Parish Council. 118 In the district of North Norfolk only two of the proposed eleven divisions would be non-coterminous. These are the proposed Holt and Sheringham divisions. However, the area is urban in nature and to provide good electoral equality it is necessary to divide Chaucer ward, as proposed by the County Council. 119 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) the divisions of Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham would have councillor:elector ratios 8%, 4% and 12% above the county average respectively (10%, 11% and 10% above the average by 2007). The proposed Erpingham, Holt, Hoveton & Stalham, Mundesley, Sheringham, South Smallburgh and Wells divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 11%, 3%, 11%, 9%, 11%, 8% and 5% below the county average respectively (5%, 2%, 11%, 9%, 10%, 9% and 7% below the average by 2007). The proposed Melton Constable division would have a councillor:elector ratio 1% below the county average (2% above the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would achieve 82% coterminosity between county divisions and district wards and are illustrated on the large map at the back of the report.

44

Norwich City 120 Under the current arrangements Norwich City is represented by 16 county councillors serving 16 divisions. The division of Bowthorpe has a councillor:elector ratio 16% above the county average (23% above the average by 2007). Catton Gate, Coslany, Cromer, Eaton, Heigham, Henderson, Lakenham, Mile Cross, Mousehold, Nelson, St Stephen, Thorpe Hamlet, Town Close and University divisions have councillor:elector ratios 24%, 20%, 32%, 16%, 25%, 25%, 28%, 27%, 18%, 26%, 25%, 16%, 29% and 28% below the county average respectively (26%, 26%, 39%, 25%, 31%, 26%, 35%, 31%, 25%, 34%, 24%, 26%, 36% and 30% below the average by 2007). Mancroft division has a councillor:elector ratio 9% below the county average respectively (2% above by 2007). 121 Under a council size of 83 the district of Norwich City is entitled to 12 councillors. We received three submissions regarding this city, which is unparished. The County Council allocated 13 councillors to Norwich City and proposed a scheme of 13 single-member divisions to be coterminous with the 13 district wards. 122 The County Council’s proposed Bowthorpe, Catton Grove, Crome, Eaton, Lakenham, Mancroft, Mile Cross, Nelson, Sewell, Thorpe Hamlet, Town Close, University and Wensum divisions would each comprise the city wards of the same name, and the County Council’s proposed scheme would provide 100% coterminosity. 123 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) Crome, Eaton, Mancroft, Mile Cross, Nelson, Sewell and University divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 5%, 4%, 7%, 4%, 2%, 3% and 8% below the county average respectively (14%, 14%, 3%, 7%, 12%, 12% and 12% below the average by 2007). Its proposed Bowthorpe and Thorpe Hamlet divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 4% and 5% below the county average respectively (5% and 3% above the average by 2007). Its proposed Catton Grove division would have a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average (3% below by 2007), and its proposed Town Close division would have a councillor:elector ratio 2% above the county average (equal to the average by 2007). Finally, its proposed Lakenham and Wensum divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 1% and 3% above the county average respectively (9% and 1% below the average by 2007). 124 The Norwich Liberal Democrats put forward a pattern of multi-member divisions based on 12 councillors for the district. They proposed three three-member divisions, one two-member division and one single-member division, and their scheme provided for excellent electoral equality. 125 Their proposed Bowthorpe division would be a single-member division comprising Bowthorpe ward. Their proposed North City division would return three councillors and would consist of Catton Grove, Mile Cross and Sewell wards and part of Mancroft ward. Their proposed Norwich East division would also return three councillors and would consist of Crome, Lakenham and Thorpe Hamlet wards and part of Town Close ward. Their proposed Norwich South West division would return two councillors and would comprise Eaton ward, part of Town Close ward and part of Mancroft ward. Finally, their proposed Norwich West division would comprise Nelson, University and Wensum wards and part of Mancroft ward, and would return three councillors. By 2007 no division would have an electoral variance of more than 4% from the average, and coterminosity would be 20%. 126 The Norwich Liberal Democrats stated that they had ‘grave reservations’ about the County Council’s proposals. This was because its ‘thinking has been limited by a determination to use only single member divisions’. They provided argumentation for multi-member divisions and stated that ‘it gives the voters the chance to split their votes among the parties if they wish’. They also considered that ‘if a councillor becomes ill then their electorate is not left without representation’ and ‘the electorate can call upon a greater level of expertise among their local representatives’, i.e. they are more ‘likely to be able to contact

45

a local county councillor with a special interest in the field that relates to their particular concern’. They considered that multi-member divisions ‘makes it easier to form divisions which are within the guidelines of the Electoral Commission’ and that ‘the size of such divisions are better matched with such local county services catchments areas such as secondary schools, libraries, social services day centres and local fire stations’. Finally, they stated that ‘small towns would not have to be artificially divided up into different county divisions’. However, they did recognise that ‘multi-member divisions are less suitable for sparsely populated rural areas than for urban areas’. 127 Under a council size of 83 Norwich City is entitled to 12 councillors. As mentioned earlier, we will always seek to ensure that each district area within the county is allocated the correct number of county councillors with respect to the district’s proportion of the county’s electorate. We are therefore unable to adopt the County Council’s single-member scheme in its entirety as it allocated an additional councillor to Norwich City. We noted that its scheme provided for 100% coterminosity and received support from Norwich City Council. However, this is not sufficient justification to persuade us to recommend the incorrect allocation of councillors to Norwich City. 128 While the Norwich Liberal Democrats’ provided the correct allocation of councillors to Norwich, their scheme only provided for 20% coterminosity and we did not consider that sufficient justification was received for us to adopt three three-member divisions. We therefore propose to adopt a combination of the County Council’s and Norwich Liberal Democrats’ schemes, resulting in 56% coterminosity and no division having an electoral variance of over 10% from the average by 2007. Under our draft recommendations we are proposing six single-member divisions and three two-member divisions. 129 We are proposing to adopt the County Council’s proposed Bowthorpe, Catton Grove, Lakenham, Mile Cross and Wensum single-member divisions without modification as we consider that they provide both good electoral equality and good coterminosity. We are also proposing to adopt its proposed single-member Sewell division, but with one amendment to include the part of Thorpe Hamlet ward that lies to the north of the River Wensum and north-west of Gurney Road in the amended Sewell division. We consider that these features provide the strongest boundaries in this area and consequently consider that this amended division would provide a better refection of community identity. We would, however, welcome the views of local people at Stage Three. 130 We are also proposing three two-member divisions. Our proposed Crome & Thorpe Hamlet division would comprise Crome ward and the part of Thorpe Hamlet ward that lies to the south of the River Wensum and south-east of Gurney Road. It would also include the part of Mancroft ward lying to the south of the Castle Museum and south-east of Red Lion Street and St Stephens Street, as well as the part of Mancroft ward to the north-east of the River Wensum. Our proposed Eaton & Town Close division would consist of Eaton and Town Close wards and the part of Mancroft ward to the north-west of St Stephens Street and Red Lion Street, to the south of the River Wensum and to the east of Grape Hill and Barn Road. Again we consider that these proposals utilise strong boundaries and build on locally generated proposals to provide a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. Finally, we are proposing a University & Nelson division to comprise Nelson and University wards, as well as the part of Mancroft ward to the west of Grapes Hill and Barn Road. We recognise that it is not ideal to divide Mancroft ward between three divisions, but consider that we are recommending easily identifiable boundaries and that the division of this ward facilitates the provision of a scheme across the city that provides a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity. Again, we would welcome submissions at Stage Three regarding this area. 131 As there are 13 wards in the district it is hard to envisage any way of providing for good levels of electoral equality and coterminosity without making use of multi-member divisions. We also note the support for them provided by the Norwich Liberal Democrats.

46

The urban nature of the district mean that transport links are strong and, having visited the area, we are content that our recommendations provide for a good balance between the statutory criteria. 132 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) Crome & Thorpe Hamlet, Sewell and University & Nelson divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 3%, 12% and 16% above the county average respectively (5%, 1% and 8% above the average by 2007). Catton Grove and Mile Cross divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 1% and 5% below the county average respectively (4% and 8% below the average by 2007). Bowthorpe division would have a councillor:elector ratio 5% below the county average (4% above the average by 2007), and Wensum division would have a councillor:elector ratio 2% above the county average (2% below the average by 2007). Eaton & Town Close division would have a councillor:elector ratio 5% above the county average (equal to the average by 2007), and Lakenham division would have a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average (10% below the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would achieve 56% coterminosity between county divisions and city wards and are illustrated on the large map and on map 3 at the back of the report. South Norfolk district 133 Under the current arrangements the district of South Norfolk is represented by 11 county councillors serving 11 divisions. The divisions of Cotessey, Diss, East Depwade, Long Stratton, West Depwade and Wymondham have councillor:elector ratios 7%, 24%, 15%, 15%, 14% and 34% above the county average respectively (14%, 22%, 13%, 17%, 13% and 36% above the average by 2007). Hingham division has a councillor:elector ratio 3% below the county average (4% below the average by 2007). Clavering and Loddon divisions have councillor:elector ratios 1% and 3% above the county average respectively (4% and 2% below the average by 2007), and Henstead division has a councillor:elector ratio 1% below the county average (4% above the average by 2007). Humbleyard division has a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average (3% above the average by 2007). 134 Under a council size of 83 the district of South Norfolk is entitled to 12 councillors. We received three submissions regarding this district. The County Council’s scheme would provide for 83% coterminosity across the district and three of its proposed divisions would have electoral variances of over 10% from the average by 2007 (none over 20%). 135 The County Council’s proposed Clavering division would comprise Ditchingham & Broome, Earsham, Gillingham and Thurlton wards. Its proposed Costessey division would consist of New Costessey and Old Costessey wards, while its proposed Diss & Roydon division would comprise Diss and Roydon wards. Its proposed East Depwade division would consist of Beck Vale, Harleston and Scole wards, while its proposed Forehoe division would comprise Cromwells, Mulbarton and Newton Flotman wards. Its proposed Henstead division would consist of Poringland with The Framinghams and Stoke Holy Cross wards and Bramerton, Kirby Bedon and Surlingham parishes from Rockland ward. 136 The County Council’s proposed Hingham division would comprise Easton, Hingham & Deopham and Wicklewood wards, and its proposed Humbleyard division would consist of Cringleford and Hethersett wards. Its proposed Loddon division would comprise Brooke, Chedgrave & Thurton and Loddon wards and Alpington, Hellington, Hoverston, Rockland St Mary and Yelverton parishes from Rockland ward. Its proposed Long Stratton division would consist of Hempnall, Stratton and Tasburgh wards, and its proposed West Depwade division would comprise Bressingham & Burston, Bunwell, Dickleburgh and Forncett wards. Finally, its proposed Wymondham division would consist of Abbey, Northfields, Rustens and Town wards. 137 Under Norfolk County Council’s proposals (with a council size of 84) the divisions of Clavering, Costessey, Humbleyard, Long Stratton, West Depwade and Wymondham would

47

have councillor:elector ratios 12%, 7%, 3%, 5%, 11% and 11% above the county average respectively (6%, 14%, 5%, 6%, 6% and 12% above the average by 2007). Its proposed Diss & Roydon, East Depwade, Henstead and Hingham divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 1%, 6%, 11% and 17% below the county average respectively (2%, 7%, 6% and 17% below the average by 2007). Its proposed Forehoe division would have a councillor:elector ratio 3% below the county average (equal to the average by 2007), and its proposed Loddon division would have a councillor:elector ratio equal to the county average (4% below the average by 2007). 138 Wymondham Town Council stated that it did not find it acceptable to divide its parish into three separate divisions, as proposed in the County Council’s consultation scheme. The County Council’s submitted scheme for this district divides the parish into two divisions and provides for 83% coterminosity across the district. Poringland Parish Council stated that it would be ‘dismayed’ at any proposed changes to the county council electoral boundaries. 139 We propose to adopt the County Council’s submitted proposals for this district without modification as we consider that its scheme provides a good balance between electoral equality and coterminosity, and we have received no alternative divisional arrangements. 140 In the district of South Norfolk only two of the proposed divisions, Henstead and Loddon, would be non-coterminous. In this case, Rockland ward is divided between Henstead and Loddon divisions to provide for good electoral equality in the two divisions. Again this proposal facilitates the adoption of a scheme providing good electoral equality and coterminosity across the rest of the district. We are proposing a Hingham division that will have an electoral variance of -18% by 2007. This was also proposed by the County Council who, having considered several options, concluded that because Hingham ‘is a predominately rural area situated between the urban centres of Costessey and Wymondham’ and ‘there has been strong representation made to keep the wards of Wymondham together because of local ties’ the high variance is justified. We concur that its proposals offer a good reflection of community identities by keeping local communities together. We also note the excellent district-wide coterminosity of 83% under the County Council’s scheme, and are therefore adopting the County Council’s proposals for this district in their entirety. 141 Under our draft recommendations (with a council size of 83) the divisions of Clavering, Costessey, Humbleyard, Long Stratton, West Depwade and Wymondham would have councillor:elector ratios 11%, 6%, 1%, 4%, 10% and 9% above the county average respectively (5%, 12%, 4%, 5%, 5% and 11% above the average by 2007). The proposed Diss & Roydon, East Depwade, Forehoe, Henstead, Hingham and Loddon divisions would have councillor:elector ratios 2%, 8%, 4%, 12%, 18% and 1% below the county average respectively (3%, 8%, 1%, 7%, 18% and 6% below the average by 2007). Our draft recommendations would achieve 83% coterminosity between county divisions and district wards and are illustrated on the large map at the back of the report. Conclusions 142 Having considered all the evidence and submissions received during the first stage of the review, we propose: • There should be a reduction in council size from 84 to 83.

• The boundaries of all divisions will be subject to change as the divisions are based on

district or borough wards which have themselves changed as a result of the district and borough reviews.

48

143 As already indicated, we have based our draft recommendations on the County Council’s proposals, but propose to depart from them in some areas to allow for the correct allocation of councillors or to provide a better balance between electoral equality and coterminosity: • In Broadland district we propose adopting the County Council’s proposals with just two

amendments. The first is in the Felthorpe area to improve the level of coterminosity and the second is in the Coltishall area to improve electoral equality.

• In King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough we also propose adopting the County Council’s proposals, again with two amendments. The first is in the Mershe Lande area and would result in both Marshland North and Marshland South divisions being coterminous with excellent levels of electoral equality. The second amendment is in the Gaywood Chase area to improve coterminosity and provide a better reflection of community identity.

• In Norwich City we are putting forward our own proposals, based on a combination of

the County Council’s scheme and that of the Norwich Liberal Democrats. 144 Table 5 shows how our draft recommendations will affect electoral equality, comparing them with the current arrangements (based on 2002 electorate figures) and with forecast electorates for the year 2007. Table 5: Comparison of current and recommended electoral arrangements

2002 electorate 2007 forecast electorate

Current arrangements

Draft recommendations

Current arrangements

Draft recommendations

Number of councillors 84 83 84 83

Number of divisions 84 80 84 80

Average number of electors per councillor 7,526 7,616 7,810 7,904

Number of divisions with a variance of more than 10% from the average

55 25 53 13

Number of divisions with a variance of more than 20% from the average

25 2 32 2

Level of coterminosity (%) 52* 70 52* 70

* Level of coterminosity following the completion of the LGBC Review 145 As shown in Table 5, our draft recommendations for Norwich County Council would result in a reduction in the number of divisions with an electoral variance of more than 10% from 55 to 25. By 2007 only 13 divisions are forecast to have an electoral variance of more than 10% and only two divisions are expected to have variances of over 20%.

Draft recommendation Norfolk County Council should comprise 83 councillors serving 80 divisions, as detailed and named in Tables 1 and 2, and illustrated in Appendix A, and on the large map inside the back cover.

49

Parish council electoral arrangements 146 When reviewing electoral arrangements we are required to comply as far as possible with the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Local Government Act. The Schedule states that if a parish is to be divided between different county divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division of the county. Accordingly, we propose consequential warding arrangements for the parish of Sprowston in Broadland district to reflect the proposed county divisions in that area. 147 The parish of Sprowston is currently served by 15 councillors representing three wards: Sprowston East (returning eight councillors), Sprowston Central (returning five councillors) and Sprowston West (returning two councillors). In order to reflect the county divisions in the area, the County Council proposed that Sprowston East parish ward be divided into two new parish wards. The proposed Sprowston South East parish ward (returning seven councillors) would be included in the proposed Sprowston division and the proposed Sprowston North East parish ward (returning one councillor) would be included in the proposed Woodside division. 148 The County Council consulted on two options for this area, the first using Blue Boar Lane as a boundary between the two parish wards. The second option provided for better electoral equality and involved the proposed boundary between the two parish wards running south along Blue Boar Lane, before running to the south of the properties along Linacre Avenue, south along Falcon Road and to the east of the properties along Falcon Road East. However, the majority of comments that the County Council received from district councillors, county councillors and parish councillors stated that they preferred the former option. Although it provides for worse electoral equality in the proposed Sprowston division (21% above the average by 2007), we consider that the first option better reflects community identities in the area and note the local support for this proposal. We also note that Blue Boar Lane provides a clearly identifiable boundary between the two proposed parish wards, and are therefore proposing to adopt the County Council’s first option. As the County Council stated, ‘this option ensures that the community spirit and local ties are maintained and not arbitrarily split for the sake of exact electoral equality’. We would, however, welcome further comments from local people at Stage Three.

Draft recommendation Sprowston Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Sprowston Central (returning five councillors), Sprowston North East (returning one councillor), Sprowston South East (returning seven councillors) and Sprowston West (returning two councillors). The boundaries between the four parish wards should reflect the proposed county division boundaries, as illustrated and named on Map 1 in Appendix A.

50

5 What happens next? 149 There will now be a consultation period, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Norfolk County Council contained in this report. We will take fully into account all submissions received by 26 April 2004. Any received after this date may not be taken into account. All responses (including names and addresses of respondents unless otherwise specified) may be inspected at our offices and those of the County Council. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period. 150 Express your views by writing directly to us: The Team Leader Norfolk County Council Review Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW 151 In the light of responses received, we will review our draft recommendations to consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with our draft recommendations. We will then submit our final recommendations to The Electoral Commission. After the publication of our final recommendations, all further correspondence should be sent to The Electoral Commission, which cannot make the Order giving effect to our recommendations until six weeks after it receives them.

51

52

Appendix A Draft recommendations for Norfolk County Council: detailed mapping The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for the Norfolk County Council area. Map 1 illustrates the proposed electoral divisions in Sprowston, in Broadland district. Map 2 illustrates the proposed boundary between Breydon and Magdalen divisions, in Great Yarmouth borough. Map 3 illustrates the proposed electoral divisions in Norwich City. The large map inserted at the back of this report illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for Norfolk, including constituent district wards and parishes.

53

54

Appendix B Code of practice on written consultation The Cabinet Office’s November 2000 Code of Practice on Written Consultation, http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/Consultation/Code.htm, requires all Government Departments and Agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as The Boundary Committee for England, are encouraged to follow the Code. The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 January 2001, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed. Table B1: The Boundary Committee for England’s compliance with Code criteria Criteria Compliance/departure Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

We comply with this requirement.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. We comply with this requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

We comply with this requirement.

Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

We comply with this requirement.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.

We consult on draft recommendations for a minimum of eight weeks, but may extend the period if consultations take place over holiday periods.

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

We comply with this requirement.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.

We comply with this requirement.

55