Downloads

Download covering letter of consultation response [PDF, 60 Kb]

Download Norfolk District Councils Boundary Committee consultation response document (Sep 2008) [PDF, 435 Kb]

Download appendix 3: Critique of options [PDF, 186 Kb]

Further information

Executive Summary

“It is clear that there is overwhelming support for the retention of the existing two-tier structure of county and district councils. Taking this into account, and considering all the other evidence in the light of the statutory criteria, we are recommending no change to the present structure of local government in the area… the manner in which any given structure is managed is probably as important as the structure itself… In particular we would like to see more management authority and responsibility devolved to local communities…”

Sir John Banham letter to Secretary of State, 15 December 1994

It is the contention of the five signatory councils to this report (Breckland Council, Broadland District Council, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, North Norfolk District Council and South Norfolk Council) that the statement above – first expressed some fifteen years ago – remains as true today as it was then.

The Boundary Committee’s proposals for Norfolk are high risk for the almost one million people who live and work in Norfolk, for hundreds of local communities, for the Boundary Committee and its ability to command respect in its future work, and for the Government at this time of economic uncertainty.

These are also high cost proposals that run counter to any logical interpretation of how Norfolk works, how people live their lives, how communities interact and how services can be efficiently and effectively delivered across the county.

They are based on consultation with “stakeholders” rather than consultation with the local people who will ultimately pay for any change. This consultation was based on ‘concepts’, on flawed data unsupported by clear analysis and with no time for consultees to adequately consider the costs of change.

With so little detail to examine in the proposal, detail that is not binding on any transition or new authority, we have had little time to constructively respond.

We do not believe these proposals work across an area the size of Norfolk. We contend that they represent at best a ‘fudge’.

The consultation undertaken by the five signatory districts (and that undertaken by the Boundary Committee) shows a widespread feeling that we should continue on our existing performance journey without the disruption of re-organisation.

We are currently delivering improvements together, increasingly discharging the principles of ‘place-shaper’ as well as providers of quality services. We believe we can continue to deliver these improvements, working together, to improve local places and improve services, benefiting local people without the need for this high cost, high risk, highly disruptive, unnecessary and unwanted review.

In summary, our key arguments against the Boundary Committee’s draft alternative proposal are that the options reported on the 7 July are:

• high risk – and an avoidable risk at that
• bad for democracy – reducing the number of directly elected councillors by nearly three-quarters
• bad for the economy and economic regeneration of our places, in a time of global economic uncertainty
• bad for council tax payers, the very people who will pay the cost of change have not been actively consulted on these proposals and haven’t asked for them
• bad for local services, increased remoteness of decision-making and commissioning taking services further away from the people who rely on them
• bad for communities who rely on local champions to ensure that places develop in a way that suits local needs.