Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority

The Boundary Committee announced its draft proposal - open for discussion until end September 2008.

6.8 We have put forward as part of our draft proposal a unitary authority based on Ipswich and the surrounding area, but which also incorporates an adjoining estuarine rural area, broadly the Felixstowe and Shotley peninsulas.

6.9 We have received evidence to suggest that Ipswich would benefit from becoming a unitary authority on expanded boundaries, providing a more holistic and sustainable approach to planning and managing social, economic and environmental growth within that part of the Haven Gateway area.

Conversely, we have received representations outlining that Ipswich is vital to the economic development of the county, attracting external investment and serving as a focus for financial and retail industries.

6.10 Having given careful consideration to all the evidence available, we are not at this point persuaded that there is evidence to suggest that Ipswich is fundamental to the economic development of Suffolk as a whole. Despite the acknowledged interdependence between town and country, we do not consider that Ipswich acts as the same economic driver for the rest of the county as is the case with some other county towns (e.g. Norwich in Norfolk).

We are therefore not at this stage persuaded that the creation of an Ipswich unitary authority would detrimentally affect the economic development of either Ipswich or the remainder of Suffolk.

6.11 At the same time, however, we acknowledge the economic importance of Ipswich to the surrounding area, in particular the nearby port town of Felixstowe. These two towns are united in the Haven Gateway sub-region, which is of national and regional importance, providing a strategic transport gateway for trade and tourism between the UK and Europe.

We consider that the planned future growth within this sub-region will benefit by having an authority uniting two of the principal towns of the sub-region. The sub-region also has expanding tourism and marine leisure industries which are increasingly broadening from ‘traditional coastal resorts to include environmental, historical, cultural and recreational assets’

6.12 We are led to believe that the Haven Gateway sub-region, which also comprises a number of other ports in north-east Essex, has substantial potential to develop further as a major focus for economic development and growth. This is recognised in its identification by the Government as a growth point. Plans for the Haven Gateway include the development of four strategic employment sites located between Ipswich and Felixstowe. We consider that there would be synergies between the economic objectives of the Haven Gateway Partnership and those of an Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority.

6.13 Evidence received from the County Council and Ipswich Borough Council also highlighted linkages between the economies of these two towns. For example, Ipswich is the preferred local location for shipping company headquarters; there is considerable commuting between the two towns and, we are told, Felixstowe plays an important coastal leisure destination for the people of Ipswich.

6.14 Accordingly, we have drawn the boundaries of the proposed Ipswich & Felixstowe unitary authority to incorporate their shared economic influence. This would not only include the Ipswich urban area and the Felixstowe peninsula but extend further to include the wider travel-to-work zone to the south, to the boundary with Essex county. We also note planning developments taking place within the Shotley peninsular, which we believe will have a stronger focus on Ipswich than with the remaining Suffolk area. We have included the area between the River Orwell and the A12 in our Ipswich and Felixstowe authority. We considered that this area’s inclusion is necessary to provide for effective service delivery. Retaining the area within a Suffolk authority would mean service delivery may only be achieved from or through the Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority. We note from IpswichBorough Council’s concept that a unitary authority including Felixstowe would seek to protect the green belt in the interests of the sub-region.

6.15 With a clear vision, centred on this northern part of the Haven Gateway, we consider that this authority would be likely to have the capacity to provide strong and effective strategic leadership across this part of Suffolk. Similarly, we are confident that a unitary authority of this size and expected focus would be well positioned to exert influence and leverage at regional, national and European levels. We envisage the new authority creating new opportunities for working with other formal and informal partners, ranging from the local communities to trans-national partners and other ports within and beyond the Haven Gateway area.

6.16 We also consider that such a unitary authority would be likely to have the commitment and capacity to work effectively with public, private and voluntary sector partners. However, we note that, initially at least, its boundaries would not necessarily be coterminous with those of partner organisations.

6.17 We note that Ipswich Borough Council has proposed that any unitary authority for the town should be governed by a leader and cabinet executive model of governance where the leader would remain in office for a four-year term. On the basis of the evidence currently available to us, we consider that this should ensure a sufficiently strong, stable mandate for governance in an Ipswich and Felixstowe authority.

6.18 However, it will be important for the proposed unitary authority to provide effective neighbourhood empowerment to a range of rural and urban areas, including both the parished and unparished areas. We note that the Borough Council’s concept for an enlarged Ipswich unitary authority envisaged the establishment of a number of neighbourhood or settlement-based Area Committees. The Borough Council considered that these Area Committees would use devolved powers to make decisions about service delivery within a set budget. We consider that if suitably resourced and constituted, these Committees may enable unitary councillors to work with local residents and partners, including parish and town councils, to take decisions on local services and carry out planning and scrutiny exercises. Ipswich Borough Council also envisaged a four overview and scrutiny committee with representatives from the voluntary and community sector co-opted to them.

6.19 We consider that the area and neighbourhood governance model set out by the Borough Council in its concept could provide suitable mechanisms for accountability and community involvement. However, we wish for further details on how this arrangement might work, including the geographic areas the Committees will represent. We will be particularly interested in exploring how these arrangements might be adapted to the needs of rural areas, the roles of parish and town councils and the separate civic identity and aspirations of Felixstowe.

6.20 We consider that an Ipswich and Felixstowe unitary authority would be likely to have the capacity and economies of scale to achieve value-for-money in the provision of local government services. We are satisfied that the Borough Council has given sufficient consideration in general terms to how a new unitary authority would integrate county and district services into a coherent whole. However, we recognise that there will be the need for an aggregation of district council services as well as a disaggregation of Suffolk County Council services in the Ipswich & Felixstowe area.