Local Government Reorganisation for Norfolk: The revised submission by Norfolk Liberal Democrats to the Boundary Committee of the Electoral Commission

To download a copy of the submission in pdf format, please right click on the icon (289KB)

A unitary authority system for Norfolk

Submission to the Boundary Committee of the Electoral Commission by Norfolk Liberal Democrats
April 2008

Contents
1. Introduction
General introduction.
2. Summary of Submission
Executive summary.
3. The Liberal Democrat Approach
Our guiding principles - how we have approached reorganisation in Norfolk.
4. The Alternatives
Examination of the main options.
5. Norfolk Liberal Democrats’ Proposals
Detailed justification of the three unitary authority structure proposed.
6. Meeting the Government’s Criteria
Analysis of each with respect to our proposals using the supplied key lines of
enquiry.
7. Further Work
Details of further work.

Contact

Requests for further information about this submission and any other correspondence should be addressed to:
Richard Carden
Vice-Chair, Norfolk Liberal Democrats
Chapel Farm, Denton, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 0AW
tel: 01986 788279
e: r.carden@btinternet.com

1. Introduction

Norfolk Liberal Democrats have been closely involved in the debate about the future structure of local government in the county ever since the government first embarked on its current round of reorganisation. We have held two county conferences on the topic, the most recent in early November 2007.
We were thus pleased to respond to the Boundary Committee’s initial invitation to interested parties to make submissions on potential structures before the start of the original Norfolk review. Now, following the change to a two-county exercise, we are making this revised submission which reflects our response to the changed circumstances and presents our concepts of how reorganisation might best proceed.
As before, we have restricted our proposals to a relatively short presentation, recognising that the Committee may request more detail as the review progresses. We look forward to further developing our business case and would be happy to work with others who support our general approach.

2. Summary of Submission

Norfolk Liberal Democrats have come together to make a submission to the Boundary Committee of the Electoral Commission as part of the Committee’s review of local government in the county. During the current round of reorganisation we have held two Liberal Democrat county conferences on this topic, open to all members of the Party in the county, and appointed a working group to prepare the submission.
This revised submission reflects the fact that Suffolk is being reviewed at the same time and that the boundary between the two counties is no longer completely protected. The specific announcement that a merger of Great Yarmouth and all or part of Waveney district, to form a “Yartoft” Unitary Authority (UA), is to be considered, changes the situation considerably. We are thus, in effect, making two submissions. The first, scenario A, assumes that Yartoft does not proceed and is very similar to our initial submission of last November. The second, scenario B, would be our proposal if the Committee is minded to recommend that Yartoft does go forward.
The working group has conducted a detailed analysis of the principles that Liberal Democrats would apply to any reorganisation. From this they have developed two new structures for Norfolk, each based on three unitary authorities. In each case, these are formed by combining existing district council areas together to create UAs based on King’s Lynn, Norwich and Great Yarmouth. For scenario A this would link Great Yarmouth with most of the current North Norfolk DC area; for scenario B Great Yarmouth would be linked with Waveney and the North Norfolk area would join the Central Norfolk UA based on Norwich. Whichever concept is selected it is recognised that a number of changes to the current district boundaries will be needed to ensure that the new UAs reflect real community interests. We have obtained confirmation from the Committee that detailed work on boundaries, down to parish level, can be left until the next stage of the review.
The submission also includes a review of some of the other reorganisation structures that have been proposed and a response to the five criteria specified by government.

3. The Liberal Democrat Approach

Our vision

A key part of all LD policies for constitutional reform is the concept of subsidiarity. Devolving power to the most appropriate level is vital in our vision of true local government. A system based on unitary authorities has many potential advantages over a two-tier structure provided it meets certain key criteria. The councils must satisfy genuine community needs and be capable of delivering high-quality services in an efficient and economic manner. Wherever possible, therefore, they should cover areas where the residents share common interests. They should have a sound democratic basis and encourage citizen participation at every opportunity.
Reorganising local government in Norfolk provides a unique opportunity for creating a new structure of local authorities that will meet these objectives. We want to see councils that will serve their communities on the basis of partnership; providing good leadership but empowering all members of the community to contribute, raising the quality of life for all.

Our approach

Nationally the Liberal Democrats have supported the concept of unitary authorities for many years. As the government has requested a review of the current structure of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk, we welcome the opportunity of submitting our proposals for making the change to the unitary system that would be best for Norfolk. However we are only prepared to support such a reorganisation if it takes the needs of the whole county into account.
Indeed in producing our submission we have tried to avoid:
(a) concentrating on the requirements of any one area ahead of others, and
(b) any narrow political interests.
To this end we have involved Liberal Democrat members from all of the seven Districts that make up the county and also consulted non-members of the Party.
In establishing our guiding principles, we have started from the premise that government at any level works most effectively when the area it serves comprises a group of people with common interests - a “natural” community. Members of such a group would see themselves as part of that community with strong geographic, economic and social links binding them together. We thus believe that each UA should, as far as possible, represent a recognisable community. At the same time, we realise that people belong to a range of different communities. For example, there are those of the place where they live, the place they work, of a particular sporting or cultural interest, perhaps of a racial or ethnic group. Inevitably, we are concerned primarily in this submission with communities of place, though the most successful selection of boundaries will be that which includes many of the other community types mentioned above.
In many ways our existing towns and parishes fit this definition of a community very well and many of their councils do an excellent job. Unfortunately they are far too small to provide most services. Even our biggest urban areas, Norwich within its current boundaries, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, are not large enough to provide the more significant services efficiently on a stand-alone basis.
We would question whether many of the current district areas in the county could be described as natural communities. In most cases they were cobbled together under the 1972 Act from former much smaller districts to create units large enough to run district services. In spite of the efforts of their councils some have generated little real community spirit or public affection. In other cases, even where the district is a more recognisable unit, like Norwich, the current boundaries are largely artificial and frequently do not represent real communities. One of the great advantages of a change to a unitary structure would be the opportunity to get away from these “artificial” local authority areas and produce councils that more accurately reflect genuine community interests.
We fully support the statement, which we believe came from the Committee: Each Unitary should have a sense of purpose, a sense of history, a sense of place, a sense of community. This seems to match our own guiding principles very closely.
Clearly a UA has to be large enough to provide its major services in an efficient and effective manner but it should not be so large that it loses the strong community links described above or that increases the separation between individual residents and their democratically elected representatives. We are not aware of any limits, either maximum or minimum, that have been proposed for the size of a UA. From our viewpoint, in order to promote good governance and to make local government as local as possible, bringing it closer to the people it serves, the smaller the UA the better. But this must be balanced with the economies of scale needed to deliver effective and efficient services.
In recent discussions regarding city regions much emphasis has been laid on the benefits of not isolating rural hinterlands from the urban centres that drive their economy. It has been suggested that the benefits of this approach are likely to increase in the next 25 years. The alternative, of largely rural UAs, risks them becoming rural economic backwaters, too small and poor to be drivers of economic success. 
As well as strong economic and social links, our discussions have produced a number of other indicators that should play a part in deciding the basis of a sensible UA. These include but are not limited to:

• Travel to work area.
• The location of significant leisure, cultural and sporting facilities.
• The location of further and higher education facilities. (There are three FE colleges in the county.)
• Transport services and links.
• The location of major health services. (The county is served by three District hospitals.)
• The location of major shopping facilities. (There are three branches of Marks & Spencer in the county.)

We regard the first of these, the travel to work area, as particularly significant as we see great advantages in terms of generating community spirit etc. when people live and work in the same local authority area. We will thus refer to this indicator specifically in the justification of our proposals in Section 5.
The government has itself put forward five criteria that it regards as critical in determining the viability of any proposed unitary structure.
We have taken all these factors into account in producing this submission and will refer to some of them briefly, in Section 5, in justification of our preferred option. We respond directly to the government’s criteria in Section 6.
Our guiding principles can be summarised in these terms:
(a) A UA needs to be large enough to provide effective and efficient services.
(b) A UA needs to represent, as closely as possible, a defined community, based on shared geographic, social and economic interests.
In our first submission, we regretted that consideration of changes involving the current county boundaries was excluded. We are thus delighted that this restriction has been removed, at least as far as the boundary between Great Yarmouth and Waveney is concerned. Unfortunately the rest of the Norfolk/Suffolk boundary and the county’s other boundaries, with Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, are still excluded. We believe there are areas in these neighbouring counties that could logically be included in Norfolk UAs (whichever pattern of authorities is selected). However we recognise that there is now a facility for LAs to request boundary reviews at any time and that further adjustments could be made after a switch to a unitary structure. We welcome the fact that current district boundaries need not be preserved, as this allows more logical boundaries to be proposed. Work on the final boundaries will form part of the next stage of the review.
A key factor in the current delivery of good local government in Norfolk is the existence of an effective third tier. Many town and parish councils do an excellent job, empowering and representing their local communities. We believe that a change to a unitary system will make this role even more important. We would support the formation of local representative groups in those urban areas that do not currently benefit from them. It is vital that the new UAs establish close working relationships with what will then become the second tier.
We recognise that, while any reorganisation should be based on a thorough set of principles and criteria, applying them in practice can be a very difficult task. The real situation on the ground will require, unavoidably, that compromise will be needed. What we have attempted to achieve is a proper balance between the ideal and the achievable. This could be described as a “least worst” solution but we believe our proposals will deliver a sound system of local government for the county.

4. The Alternatives

In this section we will, very briefly, consider the main options for a unitary structure that appeared to be on offer following the initial stages of the Norfolk-only review, analysing them against our guiding principles. Presumably some of the concepts proposed by others will also be modified now that Yartoft is a possibility.

4.1 A Unitary County

Creating a single UA to cover the whole county, with a population of around 800,000, would reinforce the current problems of providing services effectively across such a large area. The new authority would be far too remote and there would be nothing above town or parish level to provide a check and balance to its activities – a key role performed by the current district councils. This would present an enormous challenge for its elected members and make good governance very difficult. At a more fundamental level, we would suggest that the real social and economic links between the residents of, say, King’s Lynn and Great Yarmouth are very limited. Removing Great Yarmouth to leave a smaller remaining area would not make a significant difference to our objections.

4.2 Two UAs – the ‘Doughnut’

We cannot see that the separation of Norwich from the great majority of its hinterland would encourage good service delivery. Many, possibly a majority, of those people who rely on the city of Norwich as a service centre or a place of work would be denied the opportunity to influence its future development. The same lack of genuine community interest across the remainder of the county described in 4.1 would apply. With reference to matching our guiding principles we regard this as the “worst-worst” possible structure. Other attempts to split the county into two UAs, for example by linking Great Yarmouth and Norwich together in one UA, also fail to match our principles. Again, the creation of Yartoft would not improve the situation.

4.3 Three UAs

This is our favoured option as we believe it provides the best opportunity to meet the guiding principles described in Section 3. We will develop our proposals in Section 5 below. Under scenario A the three UAs would be based on King’s Lynn, Norwich and Great Yarmouth. However, if Yartoft goes ahead, scenario B, and Great Yarmouth forms a UA with Waveney, the Central Norfolk UA would take over the remaining areas from our Coastal UA.
Others have proposed several different three-UA patterns but these all appear to be based on a small UA for Norwich and then splitting the rest of the county on an arbitrary north-south or east-west basis. They do not satisfy our own principles and we are not able to support them.
The appearance of the Yartoft option has created another potential three-UA structure, with Yartoft and Norwich making up two UAs and the remainder of the county making up another. This is really another version of the ‘doughnut’ system, which we would oppose for the same reasons.

4.4 Four UAs

All of the proposals for this number of UAs are also based on creating one Norwich UA taking in just the more urban areas outside the current city boundary and then creating three other UAs to cover the remainder of the county. In some cases this seems to be driven more by a reluctance to engage with Norwich than to create viable local authority areas. In order to achieve this ‘avoid-Norwich’ solution it would be necessary to abandon the guiding principles that we support. A further potential problem is that division of the county into four would produce some UAs that could be considered too small to be really effective.

4.5 Other Proposals

It seems likely that any proposal to create more than four UAs would be ruled out on the basis of their small size.

5. Norfolk Liberal Democrats’ Proposals

Scenario A – without Yartoft

We believe that the three UA option would be the best solution for a number of reasons. Specifically these are:
(a) There are three major urban centres in the county to which all other towns and communities relate. They thus each provide the focus for a new UA.
(b) Splitting the county population in three parts would produce UAs large enough to support effective and efficient services while removing the remoteness of the current county council.
(c) The three UA solution provides the best possible match with the Liberal Democrats’ guiding principles and the government’s critical criteria.
The easiest way to form three UAs based on the major urban areas would be simply to group the current district councils together, with two pairings and one three-way merger. However, this would preserve many of the current boundary issues so we would propose modifying the boundaries in a number of areas. For example the western part of the current North Norfolk district might sit more sensibly with a West Norfolk UA, based on King’s Lynn, and some of the eastern parts of Breckland might be better in the UA based on Norwich. We have not yet attempted to perform the detailed analysis that will be required to define final boundaries. This work would be an essential task to be carried out in the next stage of the review.

This map shows a three-unitary structure for scenario A together with current district council areas. Boundary modifications would be required in several places to create more satisfactory communities and the boundaries shown on the map should thus not be regarded as definitive

We will now provide more details of our three proposed UAs. The names quoted are merely for convenience and should not be regarded as definitive. The population figures quoted are from the last census but we believe that neither the changes that have taken place since then nor the substantial growth that is projected for the future affect our proposals significantly.

West Norfolk UA

This UA forms the western part of the county and would be based on the areas that currently make up King’s Lynn & West Norfolk DC and Breckland DC. King’s Lynn is already the main centre for much of this area though the important roles of Thetford and the other market towns are recognised. The area shares a number of common physical features, including the Brecks and areas of the Fens, which, together with strong economic and social links, produce a natural local community. In terms of travel-to-work areas we calculate that approximately 92% of the workforce would be employed within the UA.
With a population of around 256,000 (2001) it is large enough to sustain its own services. To give just one supporting example, most of the area is served by a single district hospital in King’s Lynn. There are several places where boundary changes would improve the viability of the UA. Ideally these might include areas currently lying beyond the current county boundary though we recognise that this is not possible under the current review.

Central Norfolk UA

This comprises Norwich and its hinterland: the City and the two neighbouring districts of Broadland and South Norfolk and has a population of 350,000 (2001). It is the most urban part of the county but, crucially, our proposal does not separate the denser centre from its surrounding dependent, but more rural, areas. It thus corresponds closely with the Norwich travel-to-work area and our calculations indicate that approximately 89% of the resident workforce would be employed within the UA.
If joining up these three district areas in this manner is subject to challenge, one has only to look at the way in which the three existing councils are currently working together. They have come together to form the Greater Norwich Development Partnership, which has the key task of directing the evolution of Norwich’s New Growth Point status. It is also charged with ensuring that the three districts’ emerging Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) are fully integrated and share a common Core Strategy. The three councils have also formed the Greater Norwich Housing Partnership to develop a common strategy, recognising that they share a single local housing market. How much easier life would be if the LDF and Housing Strategy were covered by a single UA. Further support is provided by the designation of the three districts as a sub-region in the latest version of the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy.
The social, cultural and economic links that bind the whole area together are surely self-evident but, to quote the medical service example again, the whole area is served by a single district hospital located just outside the current city boundary in South Norfolk. In the cultural field, one further significant statistic covers the origin of those who attend performances at Norwich’s Theatre Royal. In the 2006/7 Annual Survey from the theatre, these are split down as follows:

How much easier and more logical it would be for the theatre if, when seeking public funding support, it had to deal with a single council covering around two-thirds of its customers rather than four as at present. There are of course similar entertainment facilities in West Norfolk and Great Yarmouth.

Norfolk Coastal UA

To design UAs to cover the west and centre of the county is relatively simple. The task becomes more difficult when the remaining areas, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk, are considered. We would suggest that lifting the restriction on linking Great Yarmouth with Lowestoft could provide a lot more room for manoeuvre. However, these comments are based on the situation if Yartoft proposals are rejected.
Forming a UA from the two current districts does at least recognise their common location on the coast with the ever-increasing challenges of climate change etc. Their dependence on tourism is another factor that brings them together. Both Great Yarmouth and Cromer have attracted support for coastal town regeneration funding. With a combined population of around 190,000 (2001) the UA would be large enough to support the full range of services. Social and economic links across the proposed area are probably not as strong as in the other two UAs but are still significant. To return to the medical example, much of the area is served by the District hospital located at Gorleston in Great Yarmouth Borough. In terms of travel-to-work areas, we calculate that approximately 88% of the workforce would be employed within the UA.
As shown on the map above, there would clearly be a case for transferring the western part of the North Norfolk DC area to the West Norfolk UA but deciding the precise boundary will be a task for the next stage of the review.

Scenario B – with Yartoft

If the Committee decides to recommend that Yartoft should be created, something which we broadly support, the structure we have developed for Scenario A requires modification. This change makes our task easier for, as explained above, the Norfolk Coastal UA is more difficult to justify than those covering the west and centre of the county.
If Great Yarmouth were to be linked with all or part of Waveney District to form a Yartoft UA we would suggest that most of the current North Norfolk DC area should be added to our proposed Central Norfolk UA. As before the western part of the district should form part of our West Norfolk UA. The remaining area has strong economic and social links with Norwich. Thus most of its transport links are with the city and residents look to Norwich for many of their shopping, educational and health needs. This enlarged Central Norfolk UA would have a population (2001) of around 430,000. One effect of this change would be to increase the proportion of the workforce employed within the UA still further.

This map shows the three-unitary structure for scenario B. As before only approximate boundaries are shown.

Yartoft

We find many attractions in the creation of a new Yartoft UA though we recognise the challenges in bringing together two towns that have regarded themselves as rivals for so long. However their many shared characteristics (including, for example, ports, tourism and deprivation) would support them coming together in a single UA. Such a joint authority would, as mentioned above with reference to Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, recognise the reality of the current situation on the ground with close cooperation on planning, housing and regeneration already in place and working well. We note that the two current districts are treated as a sub-region by the East of England Development Agency and share a common Primary Care Trust. Concerns have been raised about the need for the new authority to be in either Norfolk or Suffolk for ceremonial purposes but the significant county boundary changes that have been required locally in the past do not seem to have caused any long-term difficulties.
As to the actual boundaries of Yartoft, we do not feel qualified to comment on its southern boundary. Whether or not the whole of Waveney should be included within it will presumably be determined by local factors and the overall structure of UAs proposed for Suffolk. At the northern end the current borough boundary would provide a starting point but we would propose a thorough examination to establish the final destination of all the parishes on either side of the boundaries with North Norfolk, Broadland and South Norfolk during the next stage of the review.
Conclusion
We believe that the concept of establishing three new UAs based on Great Yarmouth, Norwich and King’s Lynn, is by far the best solution if local government in Norfolk is to switch to a unitary system. We consider that this applies regardless of whether Great Yarmouth is included in a Norfolk Coastal or a Yartoft UA. We would point out that the introduction of either proposal would see around 90% of the working population living and working in the same authority area.
More than any of the other solutions on offer, our concepts satisfy both our guiding principles and the government’s five criteria. Most importantly of all, because our three UA structures are founded on genuine communities, they will provide a strong local government structure that reflects real community interests and needs. Some of the other solutions seem to have been influenced more by narrow political considerations than by the real needs of the county. Our proposals are the best way forward for Norfolk.

6. Meeting the Government’s Criteria

In this section we will attempt to respond to the five outcomes specified in the government’s request to the Boundary Committee with respect to our proposals. As before, in some cases we have found it difficult to respond to the lines of enquiry as their terminology seems to assume that the new UAs have already been established and their internal structures and practices decided. The responses below can thus only be based upon what we believe is most likely to happen under our proposals where Liberal Democrat principles were applied. Unless otherwise noted, the responses apply to both the submitted proposals.

6.1 Affordability

The change to a unitary structure should deliver value for money and be self-financing.
Any change of this kind will involve significant expenditure and careful management will be required to minimise costs. However, replacing eight authorities with three should allow considerable savings in the medium term. Value for money should thus be deliverable within the specified five year period provided the current councils and new UAs work together to manage the change efficiently. We would suggest that creating four UAs rather than three would be more expensive in both the short and longer term.
We understand that specific evidence on whether a particular concept meets the affordability criterion will not be sought until stage three of the review.

6.2 Broad Cross Section of Support

A change to a unitary structure … should at least have a measure of support from a range of key partners, stakeholders and service users/citizens.
Our proposals have been produced following conferences open to all members of the Liberal Democrats in Norfolk, which were attended by people from all parts of the county. They have been further developed by a smaller group with a wide range of local government experience, as members, covering county, district and unitary authorities.
We believe our proposals may have the informal support of one of the current district councils (not under Liberal Democrat control). There have been limited opportunities to consult with other partners and stakeholders but we have been encouraged by the positive response from a number of different sources. We support the formation of a county-wide convention to consider the various proposals but even if this does not proceed we are confident that our concepts will be much more acceptable to the community as a whole, when they are fully and properly presented and explained, than those proposed by others.

6.3 Strategic Leadership

A new unitary structure should provide strong, effective and accountable strategic leadership.
The various local authorities that cover the county at the moment are very experienced at forming strategic partnerships with each other, with community groups and with other stakeholders. Under our proposals the new UAs would find this task much easier as their areas would match community interests much more closely. We contend that good community leadership and effective governance are more easily achieved when the community is not based on artificial boundaries.
For some time the possibility of reorganisation has made long-term planning more difficult for the current LAs. The two-tier principal local authority system with two separate electoral cycles has not assisted in this regard. An effective unitary system would make strategic planning much easier.
By definition a single tier of local authorities, assuming that each represents a viable community, would be well placed to participate in discussions and debates at all levels: local, regional and national. Thus the development of Local Area Agreements would be much easier under a single tier system
Again, clear and direct accountability is more likely when all the services are provided by a single council. A unitary system would remove public confusion over ‘who does what’. As Liberal Democrats we would, of course, prefer to see elections for all local authorities based on proportional representation. This would make them truly democratic and also make members more accountable. However, if the current first-past-the-post system continues we would prefer the creation of single member wards in all areas of the new UAs if for no other reason than it would make accountability much clearer.
All of the current councils have established appropriate internal structures, with various forms of the executive/scrutiny system, and their replacements would be expected to continue in the same way. We anticipate that the local tradition of strong council leadership would continue under a unitary system which would remove the potential uncertainty currently created by the two-tier system.

6.4 Neighbourhood Empowerment

A new unitary structure should deliver empowerment of citizens and communities … There should be a devolution of power down to local communities so that all communities have the power and resources to influence the decisions that affect them in their localities, and hence improve their quality of life.
We would suggest that the strong community links that are the basis for our proposed structures would make the achievement of these outcomes much more likely.
Based on current practice in the county, e.g. the effective use of Local Strategic Partnerships, we anticipate that the new authorities would make every effort to consult and involve the residents of their areas. Where appropriate we would support significant devolution of decision-taking to an area level. This works very well already in some parts of the county for services like development control.
We would welcome the extension of area-based governance with powers devolved to groups of councillors representing sub sections of the geographical areas covered by each UA. The first task for each of the new UAs will be to establish the most effective structure for achieving this devolution. We believe it should be based as far as possible on the local communities that make up the council’s total area. In rural areas the market towns and the areas they serve might be good starting points.
Modern communications techniques, e.g. the internet, should be used, and would be particularly useful in rural areas, to enable local people to influence decisions that affect their lives and contribute to the shaping of service provision. We believe that our proposals for genuine community-based UAs would make effective engagement and participation much more likely.
Town and parish councils already play a key role in local government (and community governance) in Norfolk. We would seek to enhance this role and would anticipate the extension of elected neighbourhood forums to those urban areas that do not enjoy such a system at the moment.

6.5 Value for Money Services

A new unitary structure should deliver services effectively, efficiently and in an integrated and coherent way, ultimately driving up public satisfaction.
Where a single authority controls all public services in an area this outcome is more likely to be achieved. The formation of UAs based on communities of common interest would also contribute significantly to this objective.
In the case of the UA centred on Norwich, the new structure would take over a number of existing partnerships between the current district councils. This would also apply to Yartoft. We anticipate that there would be a requirement for the three new UAs to come together in partnership to provide some large-scale services, e.g. the fire and emergency services. The presence of the Regional Centre of Excellence in the county has already encouraged the use of modern procurement methods and this should continue.
Delivering value-for-money services will require good management. Joining up services that are currently managed separately, e.g. refuse collection and disposal, should generate greater efficiencies. But this will depend on the new authorities putting appropriate structures and management procedures in place. There will still be a need for close collaboration between the new UAs themselves and with other agencies.
The new local authorities will have to make arrangements to ensure that services meet the needs and preferences of the local community. This will include encouraging local people, local businesses etc. to play their part in influencing and shaping the planning and delivery of services. The continued use of area forums, citizen panels and other consultative techniques would help to achieve this objective.

7. Further Work

We would welcome the opportunity to further develop this business case during the first stage of the review, between January and March.
This work would include:
(a) Providing any clarification requested by the Committee.
(b) Providing further, more detailed, justification for our proposals.
(c) Developing detailed boundaries for the proposed UAs following a full examination of local community links.
(d) Consulting with a wide cross-section of community groups to seek support for our proposals.
(e) Working closely with other bodies that support our general approach and conclusions.