5.2 Summary_and_analysis_of_consultation_responses_Norfolk_and_Suffolk.pdf

Norfolk and Suffolk: Summary and analysis of consultation responses and
summary of representations from named consultees

Introduction
1. A statutory consultation on proposals for unitary local government in Norfolk and
Suffolk was opened on 19 November and closed on 11 January 2025. We
received a total of 3184 responses. 69 respondents provided a narrative
response only.

2. The 5 proposals being consulted on were made by councils and submitted to the
Government on 26 September 2025.

3. This document provides a summary of the 3184 responses received to the
Government’s consultation on the proposals for future unitary local government
in Norfolk and Suffolk.

4. The Government announced to Parliament in March 2026 that the Secretary of
State for Housing, Communities and Local Government had decided to
implement, subject to Parliamentary approval
• Norfolk: the proposal for 3 unitary councils submitted by Breckland
District Council, Broadland District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough
Council, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, North Norfolk
District Council, and Norwich City Council.
• Suffolk: The proposal for 3 unitary councils submitted by Babergh
District Council, East Suffolk District Council, Ipswich Borough Council,
Mid Suffolk District Council, and West Suffolk District Council

5. The consultation invited views on the proposals submitted by:

6. Norfolk County Council proposed one unitary council across the whole of
the area of Norfolk comprising the current district areas of:

• Breckland, Broadland, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk,
North Norfolk, Norwich, and South Norfolk

7. From here this is referred to as the Norfolk 1 unitary proposal

8. South Norfolk District Council proposed 2 unitary councils across the
whole of the area of Norfolk comprising the current district areas of:
• East Norfolk: Broadland, Great Yarmouth, Norwich, and South Norfolk
• West Norfolk: Breckland, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and North Norfolk.

9. From here this is referred to as the Norfolk 2 unitary proposal

10. Breckland District Council, Broadland District Council, Great Yarmouth
Borough Council, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, North
Norfolk District Council, and Norwich City Council, proposed 3 unitary
councils across the whole of the area of Norfolk. This includes a request to

split existing district council areas between the proposed new
councils. These would comprise the district areas of: 
• West: Breckland and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and 9 parishes from
South Norfolk.
• Norwich: Norwich plus 19 parishes from Broadland and 16 parishes from
South Norfolk.
• East: Broadland less 19 parishes, Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, and
South Norfolk less 25 parishes.

11. From here this is referred to as the Norfolk 3 unitary proposal

12. Suffolk County Council proposed one unitary council across the whole of
the area of Suffolk comprising the current district areas of:
• Babergh, East Suffolk, Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, and West Suffolk

13. From here this is referred to as the Suffolk 1 unitary proposal

14. Babergh District Council, East Suffolk District Council, Ipswich Borough
Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, and West Suffolk District Council
proposed 3 unitary councils across the whole of the area of Suffolk. This
includes a request to split existing district council areas between the
proposed new councils. These would comprise the current areas of:
• Western Suffolk: West Suffolk plus 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and
Babergh less 31 parishes.
• Central and Eastern: Mid Suffolk less 29 parishes, and East Suffolk
less 25 parishes
• Ipswich and Southern Suffolk: Ipswich plus 31 parishes from Babergh,
8 parishes Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk.

15. From here this referred to as the Suffolk 3 unitary proposal

16. The consultation on these proposals has informed an assessment of the merits
of each proposal. All the proposals have been considered carefully, alongside
the responses received to this consultation, representations and any other
relevant information, in assessing the proposals against the criteria before a
judgement was taken on which proposal to implement.

17. The criteria by which proposals for local government reorganisation have been
assessed are set out in the letter of invitation, sent to councils in area on 5
February 2025 [Norfolk and Suffolk]. The consultation asked questions relating
to the criteria for each of the above proposals.

18. This consultation relates to the structure of local government in Norfolk and
Suffolk. These proposals relate to England only.
Methodology

19. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 states that the
Secretary of State may not implement a proposal unless they have consulted
with every authority affected by the proposal and other such other persons as
they consider appropriate. Those councils and persons considered appropriate
are hereafter referred to as ‘named consultees’.

20. The list of named consultees is available on gov.uk.

21. In addition, the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (the
Ministry) welcomed the views of any other persons or bodies interested in these
proposals, including local residents, town and parish councils, businesses and
the voluntary and community sector.

22. The Ministry used Citizen Space, a third-party consultation programme to collect
responses. Citizen Space was open to both named consultees and all other
interested parties. Further information on the statutory basis for, and
methodology of, the consultation is provided on the publication page.

23. Responses to the consultation were also received by email and letter.

22. The Ministry used a tool named Consult AI to assist in the analysis of responses.
The AI tool identified themes present in the responses which MHCLG officials
have checked for accuracy. The tool did not have access to any personal data.
All responses from named consultees were read by Ministry staff.

23. To evaluate Consult’s performance, human reviewers independently checked
the theme assignments Consult had produced, and these were compared
against Consult’s original outputs using an F1 score — a standard measure that
penalises both over- and under-assignment of themes. Consult’s theme
mappings were consistent with people
Consultation Questions
24. Respondents answered the questions below using a five‑point agree–disagree
scale, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, with an additional ‘don’t
know’ option

25. The questions were as follows:

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal
suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic
areas?  

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed
councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?

Question3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils
are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial
shocks?

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed
councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has
been informed by local views and will meet local needs?

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the
councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements, for example, the
establishment of a strategic authority?

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables
stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment?

Question 8: If you would like to, please use the free text box to explain the
answers you have provided to questions 1-7 referring to the question numbers
as part of your answer. You may also use the box to provide any other
comments you have on this proposal.

Question 9: This proposal is accompanied by a request that the Secretary of
State considers boundary changes. To what extent do you agree or disagree
that the proposal sets out a strong public services and financial sustainability
justification for boundary change?

Question 10: If you would like to, please use this free text box to explain your
answer to question 9.

Overarching summary of responses and findings

Summary of responses to proposals in Norfolk

26. There were 3162 responses to this consultation, 42 from named consultees and
3120 from other respondents. Seven respondents sent in replies relevant to all
six invitation areas. Not all respondents provided an answer to each question,
please see analysis of responses by question below for individual response data.
Responses from named consultees
Named consultee respondents Number of Responses
Principal councils 8
Neighbouring councils 8
Heath Bodies 4
Police and Fire 2
Education Bodies 6
Other Public Sector 4
Voluntary and Community Sector 1
Business Organisations 6
National Bodies 2
Other named consultees 1
Total named consultees 42

Reponses from other respondents to Norfolk proposals
Other respondents Number of responses
Individual living in Norfolk 1737
Individual not living in Norfolk 1251
Organisations 132
Total other respondents 3120
Total responses (including named
consultees)
3162

Summary of responses to proposals in Suffolk

27. There were 3153 responses to this consultation, 36 from named consultees and
3117 by other respondents. 7 respondents sent in replies relevant to all
reorganisation areas. Not all respondents provided an answer to each question,
please see analysis of responses by question below for individual response data.
Responses from named consultees
Named consultee respondents Number of Responses
Principal councils 6
Neighbouring councils 11
Heath Bodies 5
Police and Fire 1
Education Bodies 3
Other Public Sector 3
Voluntary and Community Sector 1
Business Organisations 4
National Bodies 1
Other named consultees 1
Total named consultees 36

Reponses from other respondents in Suffolk.
Other respondents Number of responses
Individual living in Suffolk 1226
Individual not living in Suffolk 1759
Organisations 132
Total other respondents 3117
Total responses 3153

Summary of findings

28. Tables in this report included numbers rounded to the nearest whole number,
and as such, not all cumulative scores will equal 100%.

29. Respondents were invited to respond to 9 multiple choice questions per proposal
and could provide a rationale for their answers in a free text box. Where a
proposal included boundary change, respondents were invited to answer an
additional question and provide an additional free text response. The multiple
choice questions invited respondents to state whether they strongly agreed,
somewhat agreed/agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, somewhat
disagreed/disagreed, strongly disagreed, or did not know when responding to a
statement.

30. For the purposes of this document we have classified positive responses as
strongly agree, somewhat agreed or agree and negative responses as somewhat
disagree or disagree and strongly disagree.

Norfolk

All Respondents
31. The table below takes the average response across the multiple choice
questions to provide an overall view of whether consultees viewed a proposal
positively or negatively.
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Norfolk 1 unitary
proposal
13658 43% 48% 7% 2%
Norfolk 2 unitary
proposal
11621 19% 64% 15% 3%
Norfolk 3 unitary
proposal
14404 41% 47% 10% 2%

32. Overall, the responses demonstrate a marginal preference for the 1 unitary
proposal. 43% of respondents to the 1 unitary proposal provided positive
responses to the questions and 48% of respondents provided negative
responses. 9% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. The
3 unitary model was the second most popular with 41% of named consultees
providing a positive response. The 2 unitary model was the least popular with
19% of named consultees providing a positive response.

Named consultees
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Norfolk 1 unitary
proposal
245 45% 33% 22% 1%
Norfolk 2 unitary
proposal 231 12% 51% 35% 3%
Norfolk 3 unitary
proposal 277 49% 21% 28% 2%

33. The responses from the named consultees demonstrate a preference for the 3
unitary proposal. 45% of respondents to the 3 unitary proposal provided positive
responses to the questions and 33% of respondents provided negative
responses. 22% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. Of
the 35 respondents, 12 were principal or neighbouring authorities that had
submitted a 3 unitary proposal in Norfolk or Suffolk. The 1 unitary model was the
second most popular with 45% of named consultees providing a positive
response. The 2 unitary model was the least popular with 19% of named
consultees providing a positive response.

Individuals living in Norfolk
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Norfolk 1 unitary
proposal
11538 44% 49% 6% 1%
Norfolk 2 unitary
proposal
9838 19% 66% 13% 2%
Norfolk 3 unitary
proposal 12333 42% 48% 8% 2%

34. The responses from individuals living in Norfolk demonstrate a marginal
preference for the 1 unitary proposal. 44% of respondents to the 1 unitary
proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 49% of respondents
provided negative responses. 7% were responses of neither agree nor disagree
or don’t know.

Individuals living outside Norfolk
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Norfolk 1 unitary
proposal
1436 34% 44% 13% 9%
Norfolk 2 unitary
proposal 1160 19% 48% 23% 11%
Norfolk 3 unitary
proposal
1347 32% 42% 17% 10%

35. The responses from individuals living out Norfolk demonstrate a marginal
preference for the 1 unitary proposal. 34% of respondents to the Norfolk 1 unitary
proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents
provided negative respondents. 22% were responses of neither agree nor
disagree or don’t know. Preference in order is for 1 unitary, 3 unitary, 2 unitary.

Organisations
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Norfolk 1 unitary
proposal
439 32% 54% 12% 2%
Norfolk 2 unitary
proposal 392 16% 67% 14% 3%
Norfolk 3 unitary
proposal 447 39% 48% 11% 2%

36. The responses from organisations demonstrate a preference among
organisations for the 3 unitary proposal. 39% of respondents to the 3 unitary
proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 48% of respondents
provided negative responses. 13% were responses of neither agree nor disagree
or don’t know. Preference in order is for 3 unitary, 1 unitary, 2 unitary.

Summary of findings Suffolk

All respondents
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Suffolk 1 unitary
proposal
12925 29% 49% 13% 9%
Suffolk 3 unitary
proposal
14696 46% 32% 13% 9%

Named consultees
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Suffolk 1 unitary
proposal
193 28% 48% 23% 1%
Suffolk 3 unitary
proposal 216 64% 14% 22% 0%

37. The responses from named consultees demonstrate a preference among named
consultees for the 3 unitary proposal. 64% of respondents to the 3 unitary
proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 14% of respondents
provided negative responses.22% were responses of neither agree nor disagree
or don’t know. Note that of the 27 responses, 12 were principal or neighbouring
authorities that had submitted a 3 unitary proposal in Norfolk or Suffolk.

Individuals living in Suffolk
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Suffolk 1 unitary
proposal
7549 31% 62% 6% 1%
Suffolk 3 unitary
proposal 8733 63% 29% 7% 1%

38. The responses from individuals living in Suffolk demonstrate a preference for
the 3 unitary proposal. 63% of respondents to the 3 unitary proposal provided
positive responses to the questions and 29% of respondents provided negative
responses 8% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know.

Individuals living outside Suffolk
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Suffolk 1 unitary
proposal
4660 28% 27% 23% 22%
Suffolk 3 unitary
proposal 5153 18% 37% 22% 22%

39. The responses from individuals living out Suffolk demonstrate a marginal
preference for the 1 unitary proposal. 28% of respondents to the Suffolk 1 unitary
proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 27% of respondents
provided negative respondents. 45% were responses of neither agree nor
disagree or don’t know.

Organisations
Proposal
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Suffolk 1 unitary
proposal
523 20% 50% 15% 15%
Suffolk 3 unitary
proposal 594 39% 30% 17% 14%
40. The responses from organisations demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary
proposal. 39% of respondents to the 3 unitary proposal provided positive
responses to the questions and 30% of respondents provided negative
responses 31% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know.

Analysis of responses by question: Norfolk

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests
councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?

Named Consultees
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
8 25% 75% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
8 13% 88% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 25% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 17% 67% 17% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 67% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 13% 13% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Health
Bodies
2 50% 0% 50% 0%

Norfolk 3
unitary
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 50% 17% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 50% 50% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 33% 0% 67% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%

Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 83% 0% 17% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
5 20% 60% 20% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 80% 0% 20% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Norfolk 2
unitary
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 51% 31% 17% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 12% 58% 30% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
35 57% 20% 23% 0%

Individuals and Organisations (not named consultees)

Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Norfolk 1
unitary
1652 50% 48% 2% 0%

Individual
living in
Norfolk 2
unitary
1410 24% 67% 8% 1%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 3
unitary
1541 47% 49% 4% 0%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
206 39% 43% 9% 10%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 2
unitary
166 24% 46% 20% 10%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
169 34% 45% 12% 9%
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
63 40% 49% 11% 0%
Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 23% 68% 9% 0%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 43% 50% 7% 0%

Total Responses Question 1
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1956 48% 47% 4% 1%
Total all
responses
1665 24% 65% 10% 2%

Norfolk 2
unitary
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1801 46% 48% 5% 1%

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will
be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
8 25% 75% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
8 13% 75% 0% 13%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 25% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 17% 33% 50% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 67% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
8 75% 13% 13% 0%

Norfolk 3
unitary
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 50% 17% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 50% 50% 0%

Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 67% 0% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 83% 0% 17% 0%
Business
Bodies
5 20% 40% 20% 20%

Norfolk 2
unitary
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 60% 20% 20% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 51% 29% 20% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 9% 52% 33% 6%
Total Named
Consultees
35 51% 23% 26% 0%

Norfolk 3
unitary

Individuals and Organisations (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Norfolk 1
unitary
1651 45% 50% 4% 1%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 2
unitary
1407 20% 67% 12% 1%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 3
unitary
1544 44% 50% 5% 1%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
205 36% 45% 10% 8%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 2
unitary
166 19% 52% 20% 9%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
169 32% 44% 15% 9%
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
63 32% 52% 14% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 18% 66% 13% 4%

Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 39% 52% 7% 2%

Total Responses Question 2
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1954 44% 49% 5% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 2
unitary
1662 19% 65% 13% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1804 43% 49% 7% 2%

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are
the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?

Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 50% 50% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 13% 13% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
2 0% 0% 100% 0%

Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 50% 17% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 50% 50% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 67% 0% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
1 0% 0% 100% 0%

Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 83% 0% 17% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
5 20% 60% 20% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 20% 20% 40% 20%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%

Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 54% 29% 17% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 9% 52% 39% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
35 40% 23% 31% 6%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Norfolk 1
unitary
1648 47% 48% 4% 0%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 2
unitary
1403 19% 69% 11% 1%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 3
unitary
1541 42% 52% 5% 0%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
205 36% 45% 11% 8%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 2
unitary
165 19% 52% 19% 10%
Individual
outside
168 32% 45% 14% 8%

Norfolk 3
unitary
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
63 35% 54% 11% 0%
Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 18% 63% 18% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
55 44% 47% 7% 2%

Total Responses Question 3
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1951 46% 48% 6% 1%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 2
unitary
1657 19% 67% 13% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1799 41% 51% 7% 1%

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will
deliver high quality, sustainable public services?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
8 13% 75% 0% 13%

Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
8 13% 50% 25% 13%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 63% 25% 0% 13%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 67% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 13% 13% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%

Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 50% 17% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 50% 50% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 33% 0% 67% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
1 0% 0% 100% 0%

Norfolk 1
unitary
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 33% 17% 33% 17%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
5 20% 40% 20% 20%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 20% 20% 40% 20%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
1 100% 0% 0% 0%

Norfolk 1
unitary
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 37% 31% 26% 6%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 9% 45% 39% 6%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
35 43% 23% 29% 6%

Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
205 33% 44% 13% 10%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 2
unitary
165 16% 48% 24% 11%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
166 30% 45% 17% 9%
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
62 31% 56% 11% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 13% 71% 14% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 39% 46% 13% 2%

Total Responses Question 4
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1947 42% 50% 7% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 2
unitary
1660 17% 64% 17% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1802 40% 48% 10% 2%

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been
informed by local views and will meet local needs?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
8 13% 88% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
8 13% 63% 25% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 25% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 67% 33% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 13% 13% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%

Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 50% 17% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 17% 17% 50% 17%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 33% 17% 33% 17%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
2 0% 50% 50% 0%

Norfolk 2
unitary
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 33% 33% 33% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
5 20% 60% 20% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 20% 20% 60% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%

National
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 34% 40% 26% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 12% 48% 36% 3%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
35 51% 17% 29% 3%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)

Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Norfolk 1
unitary
1646 39% 52% 7% 2%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 2
unitary
1402 16% 65% 15% 3%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 3
unitary
1541 42% 44% 11% 3%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
205 28% 46% 14% 12%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 2
unitary
166 16% 43% 27% 14%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
168 32% 33% 21% 14%
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
62 27% 58% 10% 5%
Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 13% 64% 13% 11%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 36% 48% 11% 5%

Total Responses Question 5

Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1948 37% 52% 8% 3%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 2
unitary
1657 16% 62% 17% 5%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1800 41% 43% 12% 4%

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils
in this proposal will support devolution arrangements, for example, the establishment
of a strategic authority?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
8 25% 75% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
8 38% 63% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 25% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%

Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 17% 67% 17% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 13% 13% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Education
Bodies
6 50% 17% 33% 0%

Norfolk 1
unitary
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 0% 50% 50% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 67% 0% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%

Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 83% 0% 17% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
5 20% 60% 20% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 40% 20% 40% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 51% 29% 20% 0%

Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 18% 48% 33% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
35 46% 23% 31% 0%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Norfolk 1
unitary
1648 47% 39% 10% 4%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 2
unitary
1404 17% 63% 15% 4%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 3
unitary
1542 37% 48% 11% 4%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
205 36% 36% 19% 10%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 2
unitary
166 17% 48% 23% 12%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
169 32% 41% 17% 10%
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
63 33% 51% 14% 2%

Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 14% 68% 16% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 41% 46% 11% 2%

Total Responses Question 6
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1951 45% 39% 11% 4%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 2
unitary
1659 17% 62% 16% 5%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1802 36% 47% 12% 5%

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables
stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment?

Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 25% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 33% 50% 17% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 17% 67% 17% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 75% 13% 13% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
2 0% 0% 100% 0%

Norfolk 2
unitary
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 50% 17% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
6 17% 33% 50% 0%
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
2 0% 50% 50% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
1 0% 100% 0% 0%

Sector
Norfolk 2
unitary
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
6 33% 33% 33% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
5 0% 40% 40% 20%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 60% 0% 40% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 2
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%

Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 1
unitary
35 34% 40% 26% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 2
unitary
33 12% 52% 30% 6%
Total Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
35 57% 17% 26% 0%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Norfolk 1
unitary
1648 38% 55% 6% 1%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 2
unitary
1406 20% 64% 14% 1%
Individual
living in
Norfolk 3
unitary
1543 46% 42% 11% 1%
Individual
outside
Norfolk 1
unitary
205 29% 47% 15% 9%
Individual
outside
166 19% 44% 27% 11%

Norfolk 2
unitary
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
169 36% 36% 19% 9%
Organisations
Norfolk 1
unitary
63 29% 56% 14% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 2
unitary
56 16% 68% 14% 2%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 41% 46% 11% 2%

Total Responses Question 7
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 1
unitary
1951 37% 54% 8% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 2
unitary
1661 20% 62% 16% 2%
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1803 45% 41% 12% 2%

Question 8: If you would like to, please use the free text box to explain the answers
you have provided to questions 1-7 referring to the question numbers as part of your
answer. You may also use the box to provide any other comments you have on this
proposal.

Respondent
type/Proposal
Total
Named
consultees
Total
Individuals
living in area
Total
individuals
not in area
Total
Organisation
Total all responses
Norfolk 1 unitary
32 1056 101 57
Total all responses
Norfolk 2 unitary
28 779 71 44
Total all responses
Norfolk 3 unitary
30 953 76 51

Summary of named consultee response
Principal Authorities
41. Responses from principal councils supported the proposals that they put
forward. There was concern about the 1 unitary proposal being too large,
centralised, and remote to meet diverse local needs -weakening democracy and
risking poorer services. There was concern about the 2 and 3 unitary proposals,
regarding proposed geography, savings and the impact of disaggregation on
service delivery. Respondees pointed to risks arising from boundary change, and
set out their view that the a 3 unitary model, fragments communities, weakens
Greater Norwich, lacks evidence and financial credibility, undermines public
services, and creates artificial geographies.
Neighbouring Principle Authorities
42. Responses from neighbouring authorities were varied. Support for proposals was
consistent with the arguments made in those proposals, with councils that
favoured smaller unitaries citing their proximity to communities, and those that
favoured larger unitaries noting concerns about disaggregation and financial
resilience.
Health Bodies
43. Some health partners demonstrated no clear preference for any of the three
options. Those that did demonstrate a preference favoured the single unitary
option. Health partners noted that a single unitary would result in fewer transitions
of an individual between authorities, decrease complexity in the system and
enable streamlined multiagency working.
Police and Fire and Rescue Bodies
44. Police and Fire Authorities demonstrated a preference for the single unitary
proposal, citing concerns about the impact of disaggregation on service delivery,
particularly the safeguarding of vulnerable people.
Education Bodies
45. Responses from education bodies were varied. Those education bodies that
favoured the 3 unitary model were concerned about the sizes of the 1 and 2
unitary proposals. Respondents that favoured the 1 unitary raised concerns

about the impact and risk of disaggregation on children’s services, safeguarding
and SEND.
Other public Sector bodies
46. Responses from other public bodies noted concerns about the impact of service
disaggregation on children’s and adult social care services. Other respondents
provided no overall preference and signalled a willingness to work with councils
regardless of the outcomes.
Voluntary and community sector
47. Responses from the Voluntary and Community Sector favoured the single unitary
proposal, taking the view that it was the most financially resilient. Responses
noted the benefits of locality resulting from the 3 unitary model; they were overall
not convinced by the case for the 2 unitary model.
Business Bodies
48. Businesses were generally positive in their responses to all proposals, however,
more respondees favoured the 1 unitary, citing concerns about consistency
across the area, efficiency, and the preservation of the social care market in
relation to the 2 and 3 unitary proposals.
Other named consultees
49. Responses favoured the 1 unitary proposal noting it offered the best chance of
efficiency savings and financial resilience. Responses were critical of the 2 and
3 unitary proposals and did not recognise the logic used to determine the new
boundaries.
Comments against the criteria

50. For criteria 1: A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area
concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government: There was
concern that the 1 unitary area would be too large and too remote from the
communities the council would serve. Support for the 1 unitary agreed that
Norfolk has a single economic area and strong county wide identity. There was
concern that the 2 and the 3 unitary models suggested arbitrary boundaries and
councils that were too small. Support for the 2 and 3 unitary models focussed on
the proximity of the proposed councils to local communities and economies.

51. For criteria 2: Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve
efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks: There was
concern that the 1 unitary proposal would result in a council with too great a
population. Support for the proposed efficiencies, economies of scale, and the
financial resilience of the model. Some responses noted the significant savings
predicted in the two unitary model though there was concern they would be
realised. There was concern that the 3 unitary model would be inefficient and
financial vulnerable.

52. For criteria 3: Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality
and sustainable public services to citizens: There was concern that the 1
unitary model would be too large to delivery services locally. Support for the
economies of scale that would support service procurement and the absence of

disaggregation. There was support for the smaller local councils proposed by the
2 and the 3 models, and some belief this would result in improved service
provision. There was concern on the impact of disaggregation on adult and
children’s social care services and the provision of safeguarding.

53. For criteria 4: Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought
to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed
by local views: Principal authorities justified their own models and there was
concern that the models in other proposals were not properly informed by local
engagement, or selectively chose outcomes from that engagement that aligned
with their proposed model. Less commentary was provided on this criteria from
named consultees outside the principal and neighbouring authorities.

54. For criteria 5: New unitary structures must support devolution
arrangements: Principal authorities justified their own models and there was
concern that the models in other proposals would not align with devolution
ambitions. Less commentary was provided on this criteria from named
consultees outside the principal and neighbouring authorities.

55. For criteria 6: New unitary structures should enable stronger community
engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment: Principal authorities justified their own models and there was
concern that the models in other proposals would not provide a platform for
community engagement and empowerment. Less commentary was provided on
this criteria from named consultees outside the principal and neighbouring
authorities.

The themes identified by the AI tool were as follows:
Local Democratic Representation
56. Respondents raised concerns about the loss of local representation, identity and
democracy due to larger authorities. There was a perception that decision
making made further away from the community would not reflect needs across
the local community and that some areas would be neglected.
Geographical Split and Size
57. There was concern about geographical split of areas. Feedback was provided
around distinct geographic divided and needs, including representation, cultural
considerations and community impacts, and remoteness and access.
Financial Stability and Efficiencies of New Unitaries
58. There was concern that smaller unitaries would not be financially resilient, adding
financial risk and inefficiency. In addition, there were concerns raised regarding
the cost of reorganisation and the disruption of the change, increased council
tax, and risks to service provision.
Support for Proposal
59. Support for the single unitary proposal included cost savings, improved local
governance, coherent strategic planning and avoiding service disaggregation.

The three unitary proposal received support including a balanced approach to
scale and local responsiveness which considers the local geography.
Impact on Public Services and Governance
60. Positive feedback was provided on improved service delivery and efficiency,
eliminating duplication and clear leadership. There was concern about
implementation cost, disruption to services through implementation, and
bureaucracy associated with larger councils.
Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses
61. Emailed and written responses from non-named consultees were broadly
consistent with the responses received on Citizen Space. Responses that
favoured the 1 unitary model referenced financial resilience and the avoidance
of service disaggregation. Responses that favoured the two or the three unitary
models observed that a single unitary may be too large to represent the
communities and places within Norfolk.

Question 9: This proposal is accompanied by a request that the Secretary of State
considers boundary changes. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the
proposal sets out a strong public services and financial sustainability justification for
boundary change? This question and question 10 were asked in relation to proposal
the Norfolk 3 unitary proposal.

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
8 63% 25% 13% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 67% 17% 17% 0%
Health
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
1 100% 0% 0% 0%

Norfolk 3
unitary
Education
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
6 17% 50% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
5 20% 20% 60% 0%
National
Bodies
Norfolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Total
Named
Consultees
Norfolk 3
unitary
32 44% 25% 31% 0%

Individuals and Organisations (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t
know
Individual
living in
1536 36% 51% 10% 3%

Norfolk 3
unitary
Individual
outside
Norfolk 3
unitary
169 27% 44% 18% 11%
Organisations
Norfolk 3
unitary
56 30% 46% 20% 4%

Total Responses Question 9
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Norfolk 3
unitary
1793 35% 50% 12% 4%

Question 10: If you would like to, please use this free text box to explain your
answer to question 9

Respondent
type/Proposal
Total
Named
consultees
Total
Individuals
living in area
Total
individuals
not in area
Total
Organisation
Total all responses
Norfolk 3 unitary

20 556 46 29
.
Summary of Local Government Boundary Commission for England (The
Commission) Response
62. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England provided
observations on the evidence provided to support the boundary change request
within the 3 unitary proposal, drawing on their Principal Area Boundary Review
expertise. They observed that the evidence to support the expansion of Norwich
was more detailed than that provided to support the other two proposed
authorities of East and West Norfolk, and that relatively little data was used to
support specifically the proposed boundary change rather than the case for three
unitary councils.

Summary of named consultee response
Principal Authorities

63. Principal authorities that supported the 3 unitary proposal reiterated the
arguments set out in the overall proposal, and set out how the proposed
boundary change was necessary to reflect the economic and social areas within
Norfolk. Councils that did not support this proposal made the case that there was
no strong justification, that the proposed boundaries remained arbitrary and that
changes were of limited purpose beyond the balancing of populations between
the 3 areas.
Neighbouring Principal Authorities
64. Neighbouring authorities that agreed with the 3 unitary proposal reflected the
same arguments as set out in that proposal, and agreed that the boundary
change was justified. Councils that did not agree with the proposed changes
suggested that even with the proposed changes the boundaries of the proposed
unitaries remained arbitrary and at odds with economic and social areas.
Health Bodies
65. Health bodies that supported the 3 unitary proposal noted that the changes
enabled balance between the three unitaries. Those that did not agree with the
proposal suggested that even with the boundaries proposed by the modification,
their preference remained the single unitary as it avoided disaggregation.
Police and Fire and Rescue Bodies
66. Police and Fire Authorities commented that the unitary council for Norwich set
out in the 3 unitary proposal was largely supported and reflected the growth of
Norwich into surrounding areas. They suggested that Wymondham should be
included within the Greater Norwich area. They did not comment on the changes
to East and West Norfolk.
Education Bodies
67. Education bodies referenced their overall concern about the disaggregation of
services when considering the proposed boundary change.
Other public bodies
68. Respondees that supported the 3 unitary proposal noted that the boundary
changes were a logical consequence in the adoption of this proposal.
Voluntary and community sector
69. Respondents suggested that the 3 unitary proposal, with boundary change was
more sustainable than the 2 unitary proposal.
Business Bodies
70. Where business respondents commented on the proposed boundary change,
there was concern that the changes may compound the challenge of
disaggregating services in the area.
Other named consultees
71. Comments did not directly address the proposed boundary change, while
indicating an overall preference for the single unitary model.

Summary of named consultee responses

Comments against the criteria

72. For criteria 1: A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area
concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government: Where
responses were positive about the proposed boundary changes they referenced
how the changed unitaries would better reflect economic and social areas within
Norfolk. Where responses disagreed with the proposed boundary changes it was
suggested that the new boundaries were arbitrary and designed to balance
populations between the three unitaries and not the economic and social areas
within them. Some respondents made the case that Wymondham could have
been included in the Greater Norwich Unitary.

73. For criteria 2: Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve
efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks: Responses
that agreed with the proposed changes agreed that they would make each of the
three unitaries more financial resilient. Responses that disagreed with the
proposed changes referred to overall concerns about the viability of 3 unitaries
for the area.

74. For criteria 3: Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality
and sustainable public services to citizens: Responses that agreed with the
proposed changes set out how the three areas would better reflect local
communities and therefore enable new councils to deliver better services.
Responses that were critical of the proposed changes tended to restate their
overall concerns about the impact of disaggregation, and how boundary change
may compound this complication.

75. For criteria 4: Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought
to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed
by local views: Responses that agreed with the proposed boundary change
referenced how they reflected the engagement undertaken during the
development of the proposal.

76. For criteria 5: New unitary structures must support devolution
arrangements: Neither responses agreeing with, or disagreeing with, the
proposed boundary change made strong arguments in relation to the impact of
the proposed boundary changes on devolution.

77. For criteria 6: New unitary structures should enable stronger community
engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment: Arguments made for and against the merits of the proposed
boundary change in relation to criteria 6 were consistent with those set out in
respondees assessments of the overall business cases.

Themes identified by the AI tool were as follows:

Boundaries and communities
78. Responses opposing boundary change cited increased complexity, costs,
disruption to services, and loss of community identity. Some responses
suggested that the 3 unitary proposal would impose artificial boundaries,
centralise power in Norwich, and fragment services, making them less efficient
and more costly. There were some views that the changes would result in higher
salaries for council employees.

Financial Resilience and Efficiency
79. There was concern about increased costs, waste of taxpayer money, and lack of
financial savings with boundary changes. Boundary changes may reduce the
impact of local democracy by moving residents into different constituencies.

Geographies and service footprint alignment
80. Responses supporting boundary change cited better representation, efficiency,
improved services, financial stability and strategic planning. They suggested that
proposed boundary changes reflected sensible geographic boundaries and
natural geographies and aligned with fire and police. There were some views that
existing boundaries are outdated and that there was a sound business case for
boundary changes, aligning service delivery with boundaries.

Accountability and democratic representation
81. Respondents stated that boundary changes could improve local accountability
and tailored services for communities. The boundary changes offer a stronger
framework for empowering neighbourhoods and local communities.

Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses
82. Paper and emailed responses mirrored online responses. Many responses did
not directly engage with the proposed boundary change, engaging instead with
the proposal as a whole. Where responses agreed with the changes they
referenced how the expansion of Norwich would align with the geographic extent
of the city, and how it was right that government should make exemption for the
use of existing districts as building blocks if the new boundaries were right for the
communities they served.

Analysis of responses by question Suffolk

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests
councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
6 17% 83% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
11 18% 73% 9% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 20% 10% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
2 50% 0% 50% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
National
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
27 26% 56% 19% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 67% 15% 19% 0%

Individual
outside
Suffolk 1
unitary
668 30% 27% 21% 22%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
647 20% 37% 20% 22%
Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
74 23% 50% 14% 14%
Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
75 43% 33% 12% 12%

Total Responses Question 1
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1850 33% 48% 10% 8%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1844 50% 32% 10% 9%

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will
be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
6 17% 83% 0% 0%

Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
11 18% 45% 36% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 10% 20% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
3 33% 33% 33% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
1 0% 0% 100% 0%

Suffolk 1
unitary
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
27 26% 44% 30% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 63% 11% 26% 0%

Individuals and Organisations (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Suffolk 1
unitary
1078 32% 64% 4% 0%
Individual
living in
Suffolk 3
unitary
1094 65% 31% 4% 0%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 1
unitary
668 28% 27% 22% 23%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
646 18% 37% 22% 23%
Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
75 21% 52% 13% 13%

Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
75 39% 33% 15% 13%

Total Responses Question 2
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1848 30% 50% 11% 9%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1842 47% 33% 11% 9%

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are
the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?

Suffolk 1
unitary
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 20% 10% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
3 33% 0% 67% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Other Public
Sector
2 50% 0% 50% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 100% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
27 30% 48% 22% 0%

Suffolk 1
unitary
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 63% 15% 22% 0%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Suffolk 1
unitary
1080 34% 61% 4% 1%
Individual
living in
Suffolk 3
unitary
1089 63% 32% 5% 1%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 1
unitary
667 30% 28% 20% 22%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
644 18% 39% 21% 22%
Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
75 25% 51% 11% 13%
Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
73 40% 29% 18% 14%

Total Responses Question 3
Respondent
type
Total Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know

Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1849 32% 49% 10% 9%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1833 46% 34% 12% 9%

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will
deliver high quality, sustainable public services?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
6 33% 67% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
11 18% 64% 18% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 20% 10% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
2 100% 0% 0% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
1 100% 0% 0% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 0% 50% 50% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
28 32% 46% 21% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 67% 15% 19% 0%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)

Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Suffolk 1
unitary
1078 29% 63% 7% 1%
Individual
living in
Suffolk 3
unitary
1093 63% 29% 7% 1%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 1
unitary
666 27% 28% 24% 21%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
642 18% 37% 23% 22%
Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
75 19% 51% 16% 15%
Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
75 39% 33% 15% 13%

Total Responses Question 4
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1847 28% 50% 14% 9%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1837 46% 32% 13% 9%

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been
informed by local views and will meet local needs?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
6 17% 83% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
11 18% 55% 27% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 60% 10% 30% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
3 33% 0% 67% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Suffolk 1
unitary
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
28 29% 39% 32% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 63% 11% 26% 0%

Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
644 18% 34% 24% 24%
Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
74 14% 49% 23% 15%
Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
75 36% 28% 23% 13%

Total Responses Question 5
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1843 24% 52% 13% 10%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1837 47% 30% 14% 10%

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils
in this proposal will support devolution arrangements, for example, the establishment
of a strategic authority?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know

Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
6 17% 83% 0% 0%
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
11 27% 64% 9% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 20% 10% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
3 33% 0% 33% 33%

Suffolk 1
unitary
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 0% 50% 50% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
28 32% 46% 18% 4%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 63% 15% 22% 0%

Individuals and Organisations (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Suffolk 1
unitary
1077 35% 49% 13% 3%
Individual
living in
Suffolk 3
unitary
1090 58% 28% 11% 3%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 1
unitary
663 29% 25% 23% 23%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
644 17% 38% 23% 23%

Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
75 23% 43% 19% 16%
Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
74 36% 26% 19% 19%

Total Responses Question 6
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1843 32% 40% 17% 11%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1835 43% 31% 16% 11%

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables
stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment?

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
6 17% 83% 0% 0%

Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 1
unitary
11 18% 73% 9% 0%
Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 20% 10% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Education
Bodies
3 33% 33% 33% 0%

Suffolk 3
unitary
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 1
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 100% 0% 0% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
2 0% 50% 50% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 1
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
1 0% 0% 100% 0%

Suffolk 1
unitary
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 1
unitary
28 25% 54% 21% 0%
Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 67% 15% 19% 0%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Suffolk 1
unitary
1077 25% 68% 6% 0%
Individual
living in
Suffolk 3
unitary
1092 68% 24% 7% 1%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 1
unitary
665 26% 28% 23% 22%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
643 21% 34% 24% 21%
Organisations
Suffolk 1
unitary
75 19% 52% 13% 16%

Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
74 43% 26% 15% 16%

Total Responses Question 7
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 1
unitary
1845 25% 53% 13% 9%
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1836 51% 27% 13% 8%

Question 8: If you would like to, please use the free text box to explain the answers
you have provided to questions 1-7 referring to the question numbers as part of your
answer. You may also use the box to provide any other comments you have on this
proposal.

Respondent
type/Proposal
Total
Named
consultees
Total
Individuals
living in area
Total
individuals
not in area
Total
Organisation
Total all responses
Suffolk 1 unitary
24 708 273 59
Total all responses
Suffolk 3 unitary
23 698 255 61

Principal Authorities
83. Responses from principal councils supported the proposals that they put
forward. Responses to the 3 unitary proposal highlighted significant concerns
about the impact of disaggregation and the financial viability of new councils.
Responses to the 1 unitary proposal raised concerns about it too large to
represent Suffolk communities. Responses challenged the evidence used in the
1 unitary proposal that concluded the 3 unitary model would cost more than the
current two-tier system.
Neighbouring Principal Authorities

84. Responses from neighbouring authorities noted the 3 unitary proposal’s locality
and proximity to communities. Responses to the 1 unitary option noted greater
financial resilience and avoidance of service disaggregation.
Health Bodies
85. Health bodies in Suffolk did not demonstrate a strong preference for either option
with respondees citing strengths and weaknesses in both proposals.
Police and Fire and Rescue Bodies
86. Police and Fire authorities in Suffolk had no preference between the 1 and the 3
unitary authorities, noting instead general concerns about the impact of local
government reorganisation and reform on service delivery.
Education
87. Responses from education bodies were varied. Respondents that supported the
single unitary raised concerns about the impact of disaggregation in alternative
models, and those that supported the 3 unitary model were concerned that the
size of the single unitary would lead to remoteness from communities.
Other public Sector
88. Responses from other public sector bodies favoured the 3 unitary proposal,
noting that smaller unitaries may be better placed to work with service providers.
Other respondents provided no overall preference and signalled a willingness to
work with councils regardless of the outcomes.
Voluntary and community sector
89. Responses from the voluntary and community sector were favourable towards
both models, identifying the strengths contained within each proposal and
opportunities for future working between councils and the voluntary and
community sector.
Business Bodies
90. Responses from business were mixed, with some respondents offering no
preference for either model, but identifying the strengths and weaknesses of
both. Of those that did indicate a preference, there was support for the 3 unitary
authority model on the basis of proximity to communities and sectors.
Other Named consultees
91. Responses offered no preference, but signalled intent to work with new unitaries
implemented under either proposal.

92. For criteria 1: A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area
concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government :
Responses were comparable to Norfolk, noting that councils supporting the 1
and the 3 unitaries models in both areas had worked closely together. Those not
in support of the 1 unitary considered the area to be too large and too remote
from the varied coastal, urban, and rural communities of Suffolk. Those in support
of the 1 unitary agreed that Suffolk has a single economic area and strong county

wide identity. Support for the 3 unitary model focussed on the proximity of the
proposed councils to local communities and economies.

93. For criteria 2: Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve
efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks: There was
concern that the 1 unitary proposal would result in a council with too great a
population, and that it would lack the financial agility to respond to local needs.
Support for the 1 unitary proposal noted potential efficiencies, economies of
scale, and the financial resilience of the model. There was concern that the 3
unitary model would be inefficient and financial vulnerable.

94. For criteria 3: Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality
and sustainable public services to citizens: There was concern that the 1
unitary model would be too large to deliver services locally. Support for the
economies of scale that would support service procurement and the absence of
disaggregation. There was support for the smaller local councils in the 3 unitary
model, and that this would result in improved service provision. There was
concern on the impact of disaggregation on adult and children’s social care
services and the provision of safeguarding.

95. For criteria 4: Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought
to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed
by local views: Principal authorities justified their own models and there was
concern that the models in other proposals were not properly informed by local
engagement, or selectively chose outcomes from that engagement. Less
commentary was provided on this criteria from named consultees outside the
principal and neighbouring authorities.

96. For criteria 5: New unitary structures must support devolution
arrangements: Principal authorities justified their own models and noted
concern that the models in other proposals would not align with devolution
ambitions. Less commentary was provided on this criteria from named
consultees outside the principal and neighbouring authorities.

97. For criteria 6: New unitary structures should enable stronger community
engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment: Principal authorities justified their own models and noted
concern that the models adopted within other proposals would not provide a
platform for community engagement and empowerment. Less commentary was
provided on this criteria from named consultees outside the principal and
neighbouring authorities.

The themes identified by the AI tool were as follows:
Local Democratic Representation
98. Respondents raised concerns about the loss of local representation, identity and
democracy from larger authorities. There was a perception that decision making
made further away from the community would not reflect needs across the local
community and that local areas could neglected.

Geographical Split and Size
99. There was concern about geographical split of areas. Feedback was provided
around distinct geographic divided and needs, including representation, cultural
considerations and community impacts, and remoteness and access.
Impact on Public Services and Governance
100. Positive feedback was provided on improved service delivery and efficiency,
eliminating duplication and clear leadership. There was concern about
implementation cost, disruption to services through implementation, and
bureaucracy associated with larger councils.
Support for Proposal
101. Support for the single unitary proposal included cost savings, improved local
governance, coherent strategic planning and avoiding service disaggregation.
The three unitary proposal received support including a balanced approach to
scale and local responsiveness which considers the local geography.
Financial Stability and Efficiencies of New Unitaries
102. There was concern that smaller unitaries would not be financially resilient, adding
financial risk and inefficiency. In addition, there were concerns raised regarding
the cost of reorganisation and the disruption of the change, increased council
tax, and risks to service provision.
Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses
103. Paper and email responses included similar themes to those raised by both the
named consultees and the non-named consultees who responded on Citizen
Space. Respondents that supported the 1 unitary model referenced the greater
capacity for efficiencies and there was concerns about the impact of
disaggregating services. Respondents that supported the 3 unitary proposal felt
those councils would be closer to their local communities, and that a single
council as per the 1 unitary proposal would be too remote.

Question 9: This proposal is accompanied by a request that the Secretary of State
considers boundary changes. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the
proposal sets out a strong public services and financial sustainability justification for
boundary change? This question and question 10 were asked in relation to proposal
the Suffolk 3 unitary proposal.

Summary of Named Consultee Responses
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
6 83% 17% 0% 0%

Neighbouring
Principal
Authority
Suffolk 3
unitary
10 70% 20% 10% 0%
Health
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 100% 0% 0% 0%
Police and
Fire and
Rescue
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Education
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
3 33% 33% 33% 0%
Other Public
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
Voluntary
and
Community
Sector
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%
Business
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
2 50% 0% 50% 0%
National
Bodies
Suffolk 3
unitary
0 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other named
consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
1 0% 0% 100% 0%

Total Named
Consultees
Suffolk 3
unitary
27 63% 15% 22% 0%

Individuals and Organisation (not named consultees)
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Individual
living in
Suffolk 3
unitary
1089 58% 31% 10% 2%
Individual
outside
Suffolk 3
unitary
643 16% 41% 22% 21%
Organisations
Suffolk 3
unitary
73 34% 32% 21% 14%

Total Responses Question 9
Respondent
type
No. of
responses
Positive Negative
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Don’t know
Total all
responses
Suffolk 3
unitary
1832 42% 34% 15% 9%

Question 10: If you would like to, please use this free text box to explain your
answer to question 9

Respondent
type/Proposal
Total
Named
consultees
Total
Individuals
living in area
Total
individuals
not in area
Total
Organisation

Total all responses
Suffolk 3 unitary 21 410 178 38

Summary of Local Government Boundary Commission (The Commission)
Response
104. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England provided
observations on the evidence provided to support the boundary change request
within the 3 unitary proposal, drawing on their Principal Area Boundary Review
expertise. They observed that the evidence put forward concentrated more on
the case for three unitaries than on evidencing the necessity and impact of the
specific boundary changes.

Summary of named consultee responses

Principal Authorities

105. Principal authorities that supported the 3 unitary proposal reflected the
arguments set out in the overall proposal, and set out how the proposed
boundary change was necessary to reflect the economic and social areas within
Suffolk. Councils that did not support this proposal made the case that there was
no strong justification, the proposed boundaries remained arbitrary and that
changes were of limited purpose beyond the balancing of populations between
the three areas.

Neighbouring Principal Authorities

106. Neighbouring authorities that agreed with the 3 unitary proposal reflected the
same arguments as set out in that proposal, and agreed that the boundary
change was justified. Councils that did not agree with the proposed
changes suggested that even with the proposed changes the boundaries of the
proposed unitaries remained arbitrary and at odds with economic and social
areas.

Health Bodies

107. Health bodies that supported the proposal noted that the changes enabled
balance between the three unitaries.

Police and Fire and Rescue Bodies

108. Respondents did not directly comment on the proposed boundary change.

Education Bodies
109. Education bodies that agreed with the 3 unitary proposal reflected the same
arguments as set out in that proposal, and agreed that the boundary change was
justified. Education bodies that did not agree with proposed changes did not
directly comment on the proposed boundary change.

Other public Sector
110. Other public bodies that supported the 3 unitary proposal reflected the arguments
set out in the overall proposal, and set out that the proposed boundary change
was justified.

Voluntary and Community Sector

111. Voluntary sector bodies did not have an overall preference on boundary change,
but noted that proposed boundary changes reflected natural geographies.

Business Bodies

112. Business that supported the 3 unitary proposal reflected the same arguments in
that proposal, and agreed that the boundary change was justified. Businesses
that did not agree with proposed changes did not directly comment on the
proposed boundary change.

Other named consultees
113. Other bodies that did not agree with the proposed changes suggested that even
with the proposed changes the boundaries of the proposed unitaries remained
arbitrary and indicated overall preference for the single unitary model.

Comments against the criteria

114. For criteria 1: A proposal should seek to achieve for the whole of the area
concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government: Where
respondents agreed with the proposed boundary change their responses aligned
with the argument set out in the overall business case, referencing how the
existing district boundaries were outdated and did not reflect economic and social
reality in Suffolk.

115. For criteria 2: Unitary local government must be the right size to achieve
efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks :
Respondents that agreed with the proposed changes referenced the overall case
for 3 unitaries as set out in the business case. Respondents that did not agree
with the proposed changes suggested that the changes did not significantly
increase the financial resilience of the 3 unitaries.

116. For criteria 3: Unitary structures must prioritise the delivery of high quality
and sustainable public services to citizens: Responses that agreed with the
proposed changes aligned with the arguments set out in the overall business
case for how three unitaries will best support the varied communities of Suffolk.
Responses that did not agree noted concern that the proposed boundary
changes would complicate the disaggregation of services.

117. For criteria 4: Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought
to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed
by local views: Arguments made for and against the merits of the proposed
boundary change in relation to criteria 4 were consistent with those set out in
respondees assessments of the overall business cases.

118. For criteria 5: New unitary structures must support devolution
arrangements: Neither respondents agreeing with, nor those disagreeing with
the proposed boundary change made strong arguments in relation to the impact
of the proposed boundary changes on devolution.

119. For criteria 6: New unitary structures should enable stronger community
engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood
empowerment: Arguments made for and against the merits of the proposed
boundary change in relation to criteria 6 were consistent with those set out in
respondees assessments of the overall business cases.

Themes identified by the AI tool were as follows:

Support for geographies
120. Those respondents in support of proposed boundary changes set out that they
reflected sensible geographic boundaries and natural geographies and align with
fire and police. There was a view that existing boundaries are outdated and need
updating, and that much of Mid and East Suffolk had less connection with
Lowestoft than Ipswich.

Democratic and community empowerment
121. Responses in support of boundary changes said they offered a stronger
framework for empowering neighbourhoods and local communities. Some stated
that a single council for the whole of Suffolk is not workable, necessitating
boundary changes.

Concern about geographies
122. Some responses from businesses stated that splitting the region into three
unitaries would increase complexity, reduce efficiency, and hinder productivity
and competitiveness. There were concerns that new boundaries would not match
historic or economic areas, causing potential issues with merging systems and
working practices.

Political/Government Concerns Raised
123. Some responses saw boundary changes as politically motivated, and not of
direct benefit to the public.

Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses
124. Responses were consistent with the overall themes emerging from non-named
consultee responses. Responses that directly engaged with the boundary
change noted how the existing boundaries were outdated, and that three
unitaries would be closer to their communities than a single unitary. Responses
that did not support the change noted concerns about the cost and lack of
efficiencies, echoing concerns about the overall proposal.

East Bergholt
Parish Council

East Bergholt Parish Council

5.2 Summary_and_analysis_of_consultation_responses_Norfolk_and_Suffolk.pdf

East Bergholt Parish Council

East Bergholt Parish Council

5.2 Summary_and_analysis_of_consultation_responses_Norfolk_and_Suffolk.pdf

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

East Bergholt
Parish Council