Suffolk's residents who want to see three unitary councils in the county will not have their case heard by the organisation parachuted in to carve up local government following today's Appeal Court judgment which has set aside an earlier ruling.
Council leaders, frustrated at the lack of local democracy, will now look at taking the case for East Suffolk, West Suffolk and Ipswich unitaries directly to ministers, bypassing the Boundary Committee for England (BCE). They will also consider appealing to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
Forest Heath, St Edmundsbury and Suffolk Coastal (with support from Waveney) won a High Court ruling in July. This ruled that the views of the councils' residents, representing over half the population of Suffolk, should have been taken into account by the Boundary Committee when it prepared its recommendations for new local government structures in Suffolk.
That ruling has been set aside by the Appeal Court judgment today and the councils involved have expressed their disappointment and frustration that local democracy has taken a step backwards. In a joint statement the leaders of the councils represented at court, Cllr Geoffrey Jaggard (Forest Heath), Cllr John Griffiths (St Edmundsbury) and Cllr Ray Herring (Suffolk Coastal), said:
"We find it deeply frustrating, and extremely disappointing, that there will now be no opportunity to make the Boundary Committee take the views of local people into account. Its advice to Ministers on the future shape of local government in the county will ignore the polling evidence which shows strong support for a proper consultation on three unitaries. The Boundary Committee says it has spoken to 20,000 individuals and organisations in Suffolk, Norfolk and Devon which is a ridiculously tiny proportion of all those interested in the quality and accountability of their local services.
"The Boundary Committee is accountable to no-one. We, however, are accountable to our residents, and will continue working to ensure their voices are heard. We will now take some time to look at our next steps, whether that's appealing to the Supreme Court or taking our case directly to officials and Ministers in Whitehall."
ENDS
For further information:
NOTES TO EDITORS
The full version of the Appeal Court judgment is available on: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1296.html
October 2006. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government invites local authorities in two-tier areas to submit proposals for a switch to unitary status.
February 2008. Secretary of State asks Boundary Committee to advise on local government restructuring in three counties - Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk.
April 2008. Six district/borough councils support some form of east/west unitary split (without Ipswich)
May 2008. Boundary Committee receives legal advice that it can only put forward one alternative proposal. Boundary Committee reaches initial preferences: a) an enlarged Ipswich unitary with a further unitary for the rest of Suffolk, without Lowestoft. b) a unitary authority for the county, without Lowestoft. No reasons are given for the rejection of the east/west unitary option.
July 2008. The Boundary Committee says it would consider other proposals if they were backed by new evidence.
August 2008. Three councils (Forest Heath, Waveney and St Edmundsbury) join together to promote a concept which adapted the BC's proposals, namely to keep a large Ipswich unitary, but split the rural unitary into east/west unitary authorities (the three unitary option).
November 2008. Boundary Committee considers the three councils' proposal and privately rejects it without making clear the grounds for the rejection and without telling the three councils.
November 2008. Judge Cranston upholds a challenge by three local authorities in Norfolk against Boundary Committee relating to the need for effective consultation on affordability.
January 2009. The three councils commission opinion research to determine level of support for various proposals; the research indicates widespread support for the Boundary Committee to consider the three unitary option (Ipswich/east/west) and that the two unitary option is unpopular.
February 2009. The Boundary Committee is made aware of opinion research poll but does not ask to see the results.
March 2009. The Boundary Committee publishes further draft proposals for Suffolk. They are the same as the previous draft proposal, except that Lowestoft is now retained in Suffolk. It requests views by 14 May 2009 and states that it would consider proposals that do not align with their draft proposals.
March 2009. Court of Appeal hands down judgement in Devon and Norfolk cases stating that the Boundary Committee may consult on more than one proposal.
March 2009. Three councils ask whether their proposals met the criteria and if not, why not, so that they could engage with the process.
April 2009. The Boundary Committee informs the three councils that its proposal would not meet the criteria, but does not give a reason why.
April 2009. The Boundary Committee states that draft proposals had been consulted on and, subject to a new proposal, it will publish its recommendation on 15 July 2009.
April 2009. The Boundary Committee states that it rejected the three unitary option in February 2009 having drawn on its "general knowledge".
July 2009. The High Court rules that the councils "do have the right to have their proposals fully and properly considered and evaluated at the pre-consultation stage". The Boundary Committee delays submission of its recommendations.
August 2009. The Boundary Committee appeals the High Court judgement.