In December 2007, the then Minister of State for Local
Government, John Healey announced that he would be asking the
Boundary Committee for England (BCE) to
review the structure of local government in
Suffolk with a view to introducing new unitary style local
government to take over from the existing top two tiers that
include district/borough councils and the county council.
Secretary of State calls a halt to restructuring plans for
Suffolk
On 26 May 2010, the new Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, called a halt
to the consultation on proposed changes to local government in
Suffolk and stopped all restructuring plans for Suffolk.
History of the review ...
Government fudges decision and calls for a convention
On 10 February 2010, the then Government
announced that it had been unable to decide whether to introduce
unitary councils in Suffolk as there was 'not a consensus on a
unitary solution' for Suffolk. A statement issued by the Government
is below, along with a letter from its Department of Communities
and Local Government.
The Government called on all the Suffolk councils, with local
MPs, stakeholders and through a 'county constitutional convention'
to reach a consensus.
Suffolk Coastal and Waveney's joint statement issued in response
is given below:
Suffolk Coastal's response to the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government
On 19 January 2010, the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, John Denham, was told by Suffolk
Coastal that he should reject the BCE's recommendations for the
future shape of local councils in Suffolk because they are fatally
flawed.
You can read the covering letter and the documents sent to the
Secretary of State in response to the BCE’s recommendations by
following the links below:
Final recommendations published for the future shape of local
government in Suffolk
On 7 December 2009 the BCE issued its final
recommendations to the Government, giving the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government two choices - its preferred
option of one giant council for all of Suffolk (the so-called One
Suffolk option) or an Ipswich/Felixstowe unitary (the so-called
North Haven option) along with a Rural Suffolk unitary council
covering the rest of the county. Follow the links below to read the
documents issued by the BCE:
Once the BCE provided its advice it was up to the Secretary
of State to take a decision on whether:
- To implement the original (Ipswich Borough Council) proposal,
with or without modification.
- To implement the Committee’s alternative proposal (as published
on 7 December 2009), with or without modification.
- Take no action.
High Court ruling set aside by Court of Appeal
On 2 December 2009, the Court of Appeal handed
down its judgement in relation to the BCE's appeal against the High
Court judgement handed down on 10 July 2009, following the judicial
review requested by Suffolk Coastal, St Edmundsbury and Forest
Heath councils.
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the BCE and set
aside the High Court decision to quash the further draft
proposals in Suffolk because the process was flawed.
A joint press release was issued by Forest Heath, Suffolk
Coastal, St Edmundsbury and Waveney councils in response to the
judgment: Council
Leaders say residents' voices will be heard despite lost
appeal.
Government puts review on hold
On 14 July 2009, following the High Court
ruling made on 10 July (see below), the Government announced that
the BCE no longer had a date by which it had to publish its
recommendations as to what, if any, changes would be made to local
government in Suffolk.
Follow the links below to view the exchange of letters between
the BCE and the Government:
Follow this link for help with downloading and opening PDF files.
High Court ruling on the review
On 10 July 2009, Mr Justice Foskett ruled that
the planned publication by the BCE of its final recommendations on
15 July 2009 was flawed as the process used by the BCE in drawing
up its final recommendations was flawed.
The judgement was made following a judicial review requested by
Suffolk Coastal, St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath councils. A
press statement was issued by the four councils
including Suffolk Coastal that have been calling on the BCE to
consider creating three unitary councils, East, West and Ipswich,
in Suffolk.
BCE draft proposals - 19 March 2009
These draft proposals published by the BCE on 19
March 2009 were dismissed as flawed by the High Court
ruling of 10 July 2009, which was subsequently overturned by the
Appeal Court on 2 December 2009.
Suffolk Coastal issued the following press release in response
to the BCE's proposals:
Review has turned into a farce.
The proposals are the same as the two options that the BCE
published in July 2008, except that they are now
proposing that Lowestoft is retained in Suffolk. The revised
options are:
- A Suffolk unitary authority comprising the existing county of
Suffolk.
- An Ipswich & Felixstowe unitary authority and a Rural
Suffolk unitary authority comprising the rest of the county of
Suffolk.
Suffolk Coastal's response the March 2009 proposals
Our response to the BCE and the Secretary of State was very
clear. If unitary government has to be introduced in Suffolk then
we believe our proposal for East Suffolk, West Suffolk and Ipswich
unitaries is the only logical model. However, we would suggest that
now is not the time to be looking at introducing any significant
reorganisation in Suffolk but to leave us to get on with delivering
core services for our residents and tackling our budgetary
pressures.
We wrote to all of our towns and parishes (see below) advising
them of our stance and to remind them that they do not have to sign
up to either option put forward by the BCE. They can also put
forward their own views including enhancement to the current ‘three
tier’ model.
Suffolk Coastal's preferred unitary option
Suffolk Coastal’s preferred unitary option was for three councils -
East Suffolk, which would include Felixstowe, Kesgrave and
Lowestoft; West Suffolk; and Ipswich.
Our leaflet
'Make Suffolk Three' (new window PDF 152KB)
explains our preferred option in more detail.
You can also view our
response to the BCE's earlier draft
proposals.