The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Eastern
Norfolk and Suffolk
Norfolk
Initial proposals
Of the nine existing constituencies in the county, three (Great Yarmouth, North West Norfolk, and Norwich South) were within the permitted electorate range. Two constituencies (Norwich North and North Norfolk) were below, and four constituencies (Broadland, Mid Norfolk, South Norfolk, and South West Norfolk) were above. In formulating our initial proposals we proposed changes to all constituencies in the county, but in the case of the North West Norfolk constituency we only proposed changes to realign the constituency boundary with new local government wards.
We noted that, while the existing Great Yarmouth constituency was within the permitted electorate range, we considered that retaining this constituency unchanged would result in an overall pattern of constituencies across the county that would not best reflect the statutory factors. We therefore proposed to include the District of North Norfolk wards of Hickling and Stalham in a reconfigured Great Yarmouth constituency. This change resulted in the North Norfolk constituency falling below the permitted electorate range, so we proposed that the wards covering the town of Fakenham be included in a reconfigured North Norfolk constituency.
In Norwich, we proposed that the City of Norwich ward of Thorpe Hamlet be included in the Norwich North constituency, and the District of South Norfolk wards of New Costessey and Old Costessey be included in the Norwich South constituency.
We proposed the Mid Norfolk constituency include the District of South Norfolk ward of Easton, which resulted in the South Norfolk constituency being within the permitted electorate range. We proposed to extend the Mid Norfolk constituency further south to take three wards from the South West Norfolk constituency, while transferring the wards of Lincoln and Upper Wensum to our proposed Broadland constituency, and three wards to our proposed South West Norfolk constituency. These changes ensured that the Broadland, Mid Norfolk, South Norfolk and South West Norfolk constituencies were all within the permitted electorate range.
The issue in Norfolk that received the most representations was the proposed transfer of the two North Norfolk wards of Stalham and Hickling to the Great Yarmouth constituency. The existing in physical geography between the rural areas of these wards and the urban area of Great Yarmouth.
Few representations were received regarding the transfer of wards including the town of Fakenham from Broadland to North Norfolk constituency, although those that were received were largely supportive, saying that the town of Fakenham was one of the largest towns in the North Norfolk local authority, and that the five wards proposed to transfer had little in common with the rest of the existing Broadland constituency in which they are currently located.
While there were only a small number of representations regarding the two proposed Norwich constituencies, they presented robust views and evidence. Some representations supported the initial proposals, claiming that much of the Thorpe Hamlet ward is north of the river and therefore has more connection to the Norwich North constituency, and that this change meant the boundary between the two constituencies more closely followed the River Wensum. Conversely, opposing representations stated that the Thorpe Hamlet ward contains crucial areas of the city centre, such as the railway station, the football stadium, one of the cathedrals, and numerous shops, restaurants and other facilities, and the area therefore had much closer ties with the rest of the city centre contained in the proposed Norwich South constituency. A number of counter proposals therefore supported the Thorpe Hamlet ward being retained in the Norwich South constituency, and the Old Costessey ward being retained in the South Norfolk constituency. In order to achieve the necessary changes to electorate numbers to bring both constituencies within the permitted range, different counter proposals stated that either the two wards of Drayton North and Drayton South, or the ward of Spixworth with St. Faiths should be included in Norwich North.
Very few representations were received regarding the proposed South West Norfolk, Mid Norfolk, and South Norfolk constituencies, and there was no discernible groundswell of opposition to our initial proposals for these areas. Our proposed North West Norfolk constituency elicited few representations, and those received were mostly supportive.
While there was some support for the proposed sub-regions, many respondents said that Norfolk should be grouped with Suffolk to create a sub-region and that Essex should be the county to stand alone as a separate sub-region. It was claimed that this would have multiple benefits, though requiring some degree of change to constituencies in the south of Norfolk.
Most of the counter proposals stating that Norfolk be paired with Suffolk proposed a constituency crossing between the two counties over eastern reaches of the River Waveney, with slight variations. They considered that such a constituency would be a more coherent cross-county boundary constituency than the initially proposed Haverhill and Halstead constituency (between Essex and Suffolk), with established community ties, a shared local identity, and good transport links. One such counter proposal proposed a cross-county Waveney Valley constituency that would include the following wards from the existing South Norfolk constituency: Bressingham & Burston; Diss & Roydon; Beck Vale; Dickleburgh & Scole; Harleston; Bunwell; and Ditchingham & Earsham. The proposed Waveney Valley constituency is discussed in further detail in the section on Suffolk below, as the majority of the proposed constituency would be composed of Suffolk wards.
However, support for a sub-region of Norfolk and Suffolk and having the constituency crossing the county boundary in the east was not unanimous. Some counter proposals suggested combining Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex together in a single sub-region. There were also counter proposals that, should we be minded to consider a Suffolk-Norfolk sub-region, a cross-county boundary constituency including the towns of Newmarket and Thetford should be created. It was claimed that such a constituency would bring more of The Brecks (which crosses the county boundary) together, including Thetford Forest and the closely-linked towns of Brandon and Thetford, and the constituency would cross the county boundary where the river is a less significant boundary than it is nearer the coast.
Having considered all the issues and reflected on the evidence received, our Assistant Commissioners accepted the rationale and the benefits contained in the counter proposals for altering the sub-regional grouping to instead join Norfolk and Suffolk as a sub-region, and treat Essex alone. They recommended that there be a Waveney Valley cross-county boundary constituency between the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, having been persuaded of the strong local ties, shared local identity, and good transport links. While they considered that a cross-county boundary constituency including the towns of Newmarket and Thetford had merit, they considered that such a constituency necessitated more disruption to the existing constituencies than a Waveney Valley constituency, and would also be unsatisfactory due to including the Suffolk town of Newmarket, with its close geographical proximity and local ties to Cambridgeshire, in a constituency with areas of Norfolk.
We accepted the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners and therefore proposed that Norfolk and Suffolk be combined to form a sub-region and Essex form a stand-alone sub-region. The change in sub-regions necessitated change to the initial proposals across much of Norfolk (eight of the nine proposed constituencies), but less significant change to existing constituencies across the sub-region as a whole.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the change in sub-region allowed the two wards of Stalham and Hickling to be retained in the North Norfolk constituency, while still allowing for a coherent pattern of constituencies across the county. This allowed the Great Yarmouth constituency to be both wholly unchanged and remain coterminous with the local authority boundary. We agreed with this recommendation and proposed that the Stalham and Hickling wards be retained in the North Norfolk constituency, and that the Great Yarmouth constituency be unchanged from the existing arrangement.
As a consequence of the changes elsewhere in Norfolk, our Assistant Commissioners recommended to us that the five wards that comprised Fakenham and the surrounding areas be retained in the Broadland constituency. We acknowledged that a majority of respondents supported the initially proposed transfer of these five wards to the North Norfolk constituency, but we agreed with our Assistant Commissioners and considered that retaining them in the Broadland constituency would minimise disruption to the existing arrangement for both the North Norfolk and Broadland constituencies. The other change to the boundaries of the existing Broadland constituency was for the wards of Drayton North and Drayton South to be included in the Norwich North constituency (detailed below). However, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by a proposal for a change of name for the constituency name. Taking account of the views given in consultation, they felt that the name Broadland was not reflective of the constituency as a whole, and that, as Fakenham is an important town in the area, and one that is in the North Norfolk local authority rather than the Broadland local authority, this town should be included in the name. We agreed with this, and therefore proposed the constituency name be changed to Broadland and Fakenham.
During their site visit to the area, the Assistant Commissioners agreed that the ward of Thorpe Hamlet did contain a significant portion of the city centre, and that to include it in the Norwich North constituency, as initially proposed, while having some benefits, would divide the city centre between two constituencies, with many city centre landmarks and services being included in a constituency that is more suburban in character than the Norwich South constituency. They therefore recommended that we retain the Thorpe Hamlet ward in the Norwich South constituency, as in the existing arrangement. We agreed with that recommendation and revised our proposals to incorporate this change.
The Assistant Commissioners then considered which wards should be included in Norwich North instead. During their visit, they observed that, despite the odd shape of the two Drayton wards, there were good transport links to the Norwich North constituency, and a similarly suburban character across both areas. The peculiar shape of the two wards was largely due to their alignment with the boundary of Drayton Parish Council, and the areas of particular concern had few or no inhabitants. Conversely, the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward was almost entirely rural and the A1270 road separated much of the ward from the Norwich North constituency. They noted the historical precedent for the village of Drayton being included in a Norwich North constituency and therefore recommended that the two Drayton wards be included in the Norwich North constituency. We accepted that recommendation and revised our proposals, but considered that our decision was finely balanced, as we noted that the new constituency boundary may be considered to break ties between Drayton and the neighbouring village of Taverham, as well as seemingly dividing the Thorpe Marriott residential area. We also noted that, despite the apparent physical barrier of the A1270, there appeared to be good direct road access from the main population centre of Spixworth village in the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward into north Norwich by both Buxton Road and North Walsham Road. We therefore particularly welcomed further views and evidence in the responses to our revised proposals, especially from local residents, as to which of these wards would be best included in the Norwich North constituency.
Following the site visit by our Assistant Commissioners, and the evidence that supported the argument for a cross-county boundary constituency with Suffolk, we accepted their recommendations for a Waveney Valley constituency. The inclusion of the six Norfolk wards, as suggested in a counter proposal, in the Waveney Valley constituency meant that the South Norfolk constituency required additional electors from elsewhere. In accordance with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners, we proposed that the Old Costessey ward, included in the initially proposed Norwich South constituency, and the Easton ward, included in the initially proposed Mid Norfolk constituency, both be retained in the South Norfolk constituency, as in the existing arrangement. Furthermore, as set out in numerous counter proposals, we accepted the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners and proposed that the town of Wymondham (comprising the Central Wymondham, North Wymondham and South Wymondham wards) – part of the existing Mid Norfolk constituency – be included in the South Norfolk constituency. While not currently included in the existing South Norfolk constituency, Wymondham is in the South Norfolk local authority and, while few representations were received regarding this area, there was support for Wymondham being included in a constituency composed exclusively of other South Norfolk local authority wards. Wymondham is the largest town in the South Norfolk local authority, and is considered to have strong links to other areas in the constituency.
The changes we proposed to the South Norfolk and Broadland constituencies had a consequential beneficial impact – in terms of the statutory factors – on both the Mid Norfolk and South West Norfolk constituencies. The Mid Norfolk constituency would now retain the wards of: Necton; Launditch; Hermitage; Upper Wensum; and Lincoln (which are all in the existing constituency of Mid Norfolk). The wards of Harling & Heathlands, and Guiltcross, would also be retained in the South West Norfolk constituency, as in the existing arrangement. Our revised proposals therefore allowed both constituencies to much more closely resemble their existing configurations, with the South West Norfolk constituency only being changed from the existing boundary to realign to new local government ward boundaries.
As the North West Norfolk proposed constituency elicited few representations, and was largely uncontentious and mostly supported, we proposed no change to this constituency as initially proposed.
In our revised proposals, the constituencies in Norfolk were considerably changed following the adoption of the new Norfolk-Suffolk sub-region. There were very few representations – largely supportive – regarding the proposed return of the Stalham and Hickling wards from Great Yarmouth to North Norfolk constituency. Very few representations were received relating to elsewhere in the proposed North Norfolk constituency, with no new key issues.
Approximately 100 representations were received, however, regarding the Broadland constituency, most of which concerned the proposed return to that constituency of the five wards comprising the town and area around Fakenham. These representations were split between those supporting or opposing the revised proposals. Those supporting were largely from the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward, who were opposing the counter proposals that had been submitted to include the ward in the Norwich North constituency. Those in opposition were mostly disappointed that Fakenham would no longer be included in North Norfolk as it had been in the initial proposals. Few comments were received regarding the constituency name change.
Few representations were received regarding the North West Norfolk, South West Norfolk, and Mid Norfolk constituencies. Most of the opposition to the South Norfolk constituency was with regard to the proposed cross-county boundary Waveney Valley constituency.
In relation to Norwich, over 100 representations were received, mostly with regard to the Norwich North constituency. Those in support considered that the Drayton wards are a better fit in Norwich North and opposed the other main alternative – the inclusion the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward – whereas those in opposition argued that Drayton is linked to Taverham (in particular the Thorpe Marriott area, which lies in both the Drayton North and Taverham North wards) and does not have good community ties to Norwich. We received counter proposals to split the Thorpe Hamlet ward, but this would result in Broadland and Fakenham being just a few electors over the permitted range if it included both Drayton wards, and was otherwise unchanged from the revised proposals. Another counter proposal that would keep Norwich similar to the initial proposals was received, but this required consequential changes across the county.
Very few representations were received regarding Norwich South. There was support in the representations for the revised proposals retaining the Thorpe Hamlet ward in the constituency, although others argued that its links are to Norwich North.
More than 80 representations were received regarding the cross-county proposed Waveney Valley constituency. Although there was some support, the majority, by far, were in opposition. Most of these were very similar, claiming that the constituency is geographically too large, and combined too many local authorities. The representations claimed that there is no link between the various areas, especially in areas even a few miles away from the River Waveney. Others said that local ties of villages in Suffolk would be split, particularly Stowupland (Haughley, Stowupland & Wetherden ward) from the town of Stowmarket. We received a request for the constituency to be renamed Eye and Diss.
We have again considered the evidence received in relation to our proposed constituencies in Norfolk. We recognised that we had received some opposition to our revised proposals and therefore investigated the alternatives.
We received no significant new evidence supporting changes to our revised proposals for most of the constituencies in Norfolk, and therefore propose no alterations to the following constituencies: Broadland and Fakenham; North Norfolk; Great Yarmouth; Mid Norfolk; North West Norfolk; South Norfolk; and South West Norfolk.
With regard to Norwich, although it would be possible to exchange the two Drayton wards with the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward, it would not be possible to include the Drayton North ward alone in Broadland and Fakenham with no other changes, as this would leave Norwich North below the permitted electorate range. It would be possible to include the Drayton North ward in Broadland and Fakenham, with Spixworth with St. Faiths being included in Norwich North, but this would divide the two Drayton wards between constituencies and would still not resolve the issue of the odd shape of the Norwich North constituency. Including the two Drayton wards in Broadland and Fakenham, and splitting the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward along the A1270 would also not resolve the issue, as there are not enough electors in the area south of the road to bring Norwich North up to within the permitted range. A potential solution could be for a split ward in Norwich. However, as noted above, a split of the Thorpe Hamlet ward would leave the Broadland and Fakenham constituency including both Drayton wards above the permitted electorate range, and no other ward had been identified as being suitable for splitting at this stage. The only other alternative would appear to be a complete reconfiguration of the constituencies in Norfolk that had previously been considered. A return to the initial proposals would not be possible without decoupling Norfolk and Suffolk (the revised sub-region has been largely welcomed over the initial proposals’ sub-region), with widespread consequences across the whole Eastern region. We therefore propose that there be no further revision to the Norwich North and Norwich South constituencies.
We noted that the cross-county boundary constituency is a consequence of the changes made to the sub-regions, which have been supported by others, and the arguments for which convinced both the Assistant Commissioners and us as the best solution for the region as a whole. We remain of the view that the sub-regions as set out in the revised proposals enable a pattern of constituencies that is superior to the initial proposals when set against the statutory factors. We have also seen no alternative proposal for either different sub-regions or a different constituency crossing the Norfolk-Suffolk boundary that would not require greater disruption across the region in terms of changes to existing constituencies and breaking of multiple local ties. We therefore do not propose to amend the sub-regions or change the proposed constituency crossing the county boundary (detailed below).
Our final recommendations for Norfolk (except for the constituency shared with Suffolk) are therefore for constituencies of: Broadland and Fakenham; Great Yarmouth; Mid Norfolk; North Norfolk; North West Norfolk; Norwich North; Norwich South; South Norfolk; and South West Norfolk. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Of the existing constituencies in Suffolk, two (Ipswich and South Suffolk) are within the permitted electorate range: the other constituencies in the county are all above. In formulating our initial proposals, we retained the Ipswich constituency unchanged and only modified the South Suffolk constituency to reflect new local government wards.
As noted above, we initially proposed that Essex and Suffolk form a sub-region, with a cross‑county boundary constituency of Haverhill and Halstead, which included 13 District of West Suffolk wards (including the town of Haverhill) and ten District of Braintree wards (including the town of Halstead).
We proposed a Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket constituency, which included 25 District of West Suffolk wards, including both towns. We proposed a North Suffolk constituency, which comprised wards from the District of West Suffolk, District of Mid Suffolk and District of East Suffolk. The Suffolk Coastal constituency would transfer two wards to North Suffolk, but was otherwise changed only to realign with new local government wards. In the north of the county, we proposed a Lowestoft constituency, which comprised nine District of East Suffolk wards, including those encompassing Lowestoft. Finally, we proposed an Ipswich North and Stowmarket constituency. Rather than expanding north to the county boundary, the constituency was proposed to extend to the northern boundary of the Stoneham ward and westwards to include the towns of Stowmarket and Needham Market.
As described in previous sections, there was significant opposition to the sub-regions as initially proposed. While there was also some support for them, many respondents said that joining Norfolk with Suffolk, and having Essex as a stand-alone sub-region, would have multiple benefits and allow for a potentially better solution regarding local ties in a number of areas.
The largest single issue in Suffolk, by number of representations received, was the proposed Haverhill and Halstead cross-county boundary constituency between Suffolk and Essex. Almost all of the representations received regarding this constituency were in opposition, with representations highlighting the lack of ties between the two towns, and particularly poor public transport links, which were said to be effectively non-existent. We also received evidence that many of the West Suffolk local authority wards that would be included in the constituency look towards the towns of Newmarket or Bury St Edmunds and not south to Essex, while the Braintree local authority wards included look mostly towards the town of Braintree and not to Suffolk in the north. Other evidence pointed to the River Stour as a well-defined physical barrier.
Many of those who opposed the proposed Haverhill and Halstead constituency, supported instead a new sub-region pairing Suffolk with Norfolk, and generally supported one of two options to achieve this: either a Waveney Valley constituency in the east, or a Newmarket and Thetford constituency in the west. The rationale put forward in support of a Waveney Valley constituency was that it would better reflect the statutory factors, and that there is a shared local character on both sides of the River Waveney, with the river being a uniting factor rather than a division, and that the A143 road provides a strong transport connection aligned with the largely east–west orientation of the proposed constituency. The reasons given in support of a Newmarket and Thetford constituency were that it would bring much of The Brecks into a single constituency, including Thetford Forest and the closely-linked towns of Brandon and Thetford, and the constituency would cross the county boundary where the river is a less significant boundary than it is further downstream nearer the coast. Some responses observed, however, that creating a crossing in the east also offered two options, with slightly different configurations. One counter proposal in particular would result in less change. In this, the town of Stowmarket would be included in the Bury St Edmunds constituency, as in the existing arrangement, thereby minimising disruption to the existing constituencies and moving significantly fewer electors. This counter proposal also allowed for the towns of Wickham Market and Framlingham, two areas with close community ties, to remain in a constituency together. It also proposed a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency which, despite some changes from the existing arrangement, would be more closely aligned to the existing constituency than either the initial proposals or some of the other counter proposals. Some responses said a Newmarket and Thetford constituency would cause more disruption to existing constituencies across both Norfolk and Suffolk. Furthermore, a number of representations were received from residents of Newmarket who stated that they should, in fact, be included with Cambridgeshire and not Suffolk, and therefore to include the town in a cross-county boundary constituency with Norfolk instead would go directly against local sentiment and cause even more disruption and confusion than the existing arrangement.
We also received counter proposals that proposed combining Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex together in a single sub-region. This would require an extra, unnecessary cross-county boundary constituency, and as such is considered to be less strongly reflective of the statutory factors than the initial proposals and the other counter proposals received during the two consultations.
Those supporting a Waveney Valley constituency identified that it would also allow the ward of Kelsale & Yoxford to remain in the Suffolk Coastal constituency, linking it to the town of Saxmundham and to other areas with which it has community ties. Finally, the Risby ward would be retained in a West Suffolk constituency, thereby moving fewer electors from their existing constituency, giving the constituency a better shape, and more coherence than other counter proposals.
Relatively few representations regarding our initially proposed Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket constituency were received, although they were almost exclusively in opposition and drew attention to the fact that both the existing West Suffolk and Bury St Edmunds constituencies were significantly reconfigured in the initial proposals, with the existing Bury St Edmunds constituency in particular being divided between four proposed constituencies. Furthermore, the initial proposals would result in areas like Rougham and Stowmarket being separated from Bury St Edmunds, with which they were said to have strong community ties. Many counter proposals utilising a Norfolk-Suffolk sub-region enabled constituencies that would be more similar to the existing West Suffolk and Bury St Edmunds constituencies, with only relatively minor changes required.
The North Suffolk constituency, which under the initial proposals would include a large number of rural wards from the West Suffolk, Mid Suffolk, and East Suffolk local authorities, elicited a small number of representations, with the majority being in opposition, claiming the constituency would be too vast, with poor internal transport links and no sizeable town to act as a focal point. In a number of counter proposals, the initially proposed North Suffolk constituency was replaced by the Waveney Valley constituency.
We received relatively few representations on our initially proposed Suffolk Coastal constituency. While it did receive some support from respondents, some considered the constituency did not best reflect community ties. Respondents stated that the Kelsale & Yoxford ward shared community ties with Saxmundham and other wards in the Suffolk Coastal constituency. Conversely, it was stated that Wickham Market shared community ties with Framlingham. We also received a number of counter proposals which proposed a more radical reconfiguration, with the Suffolk Coastal constituency being split into two, and the town of Felixstowe forming a constituency with eastern Ipswich, which it was argued would be more compact than our proposed narrow Suffolk Coastal constituency.
Our initially proposed Ipswich North and Stowmarket constituency received some support, although the majority of respondents were in opposition to the proposals. The support drew attention to the connections between the two towns, with the A14 road providing a strong transport link, while those in opposition stated that Stowmarket has more links to the town of Bury St Edmunds, and has little connection to the town of Kesgrave, on the far side of Ipswich. Furthermore, representations said that the communities of Wickham Market and Framlingham have strong ties, and should be retained within the same constituency, which were separated under our initial proposals.
The Ipswich constituency was wholly unchanged from the existing constituency in the initial proposals. We received few representations commenting on this proposed constituency, while most were supportive, some respondents suggested that Ipswich be divided between two constituencies.
The constituencies of South Suffolk – which was initially proposed to be unchanged other than to realign it with updated local government ward boundaries – and Lowestoft – the only changes to which in the initial proposals would be to transfer out the Bungay & Wainford ward and change name from the existing Waveney – were both largely uncontentious.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted the strong opposition to the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Haverhill and Halstead and the well-supported counter proposals for an alternative sub-region. They decided to see the River Waveney area for themselves during a site visit, and observed that the physical geography and socio-economic characteristics on both sides of the river seemed to be similar, and noted the evidence that community ties spanned the river. They did not consider that the river and county boundary between Norfolk and Suffolk would therefore be an impediment to a successful constituency here. They therefore concluded that a cross-county boundary constituency be recommended to us here, and that it be called Waveney Valley.
After considering carefully all the different counter proposals that utilised a Suffolk-Norfolk subregion, the Assistant Commissioners endorsed one that minimised change and disruption across the sub-region. It maintained the town of Stowmarket in the same constituency as Bury St Edmunds; allowed for the towns of Wickham Market and Framlingham to remain in a constituency together; proposed a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency that would be more closely aligned to the existing constituency; allowed the ward of Kelsale & Yoxford to remain in the Suffolk Coastal constituency, linking it to the town of Saxmundham; and kept the Risby ward in a West Suffolk constituency. The Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded that a Newmarket and Thetford constituency would be a more suitable place for the cross-county boundary constituency, as they considered it would cause more disruption to existing constituencies across both Norfolk and Suffolk and would go directly against local sentiment.
We agreed with the assessment and recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners and therefore, in adopting the new sub-region, revised our initial proposals to adopt a cross-county boundary constituency of Waveney Valley.
For the same reasons, we accepted the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners to revise our proposals to include a West Suffolk constituency that would be changed only to remove the Bardwell, Barningham, Stanton, and Ixworth wards, as well as small changes to realign it with updated local government ward boundaries, and a constituency that kept Stowmarket and Bury St Edmunds in the same constituency. They were persuaded that this approach would not only minimise disruption to the existing constituencies, but also reflect the views expressed in representations stating that the two towns have much in common. We agreed with the Assistant Commissioners and revised our proposals for Bury St Edmunds and West Suffolk constituencies.
In revising our proposals for a Bury St Edmunds constituency that would include the town of Stowmarket, our initially proposed Ipswich North and Stowmarket constituency would need to be significantly reconfigured in consequence. Our Assistant Commissioners considered the representations that called for Wickham Market to be included in a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency, and the Kelsale & Yoxford ward to be included in Suffolk Coastal, were sufficiently persuasive, and recommended we adopt these changes as our revised proposals for these constituencies. We agreed with their recommendation; the Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency in our revised proposals would include all of the wards from the existing Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency, except for six wards in the north that would be included in the proposed Waveney Valley constituency.
We were not persuaded to alter our initial proposals by the representations that called for the Suffolk Coastal constituency to be split into two, with the town of Felixstowe forming a constituency with eastern Ipswich. The Ipswich constituency was wholly unchanged in our initial proposals and we considered there were insufficient grounds to alter it, as this would represent an unnecessary departure from the existing arrangement, and would likely have negative implications across the county. We therefore proposed no revisions to the proposed Ipswich constituency.
Our proposals for the South Suffolk and Lowestoft constituencies were both largely uncontentious. Our Assistant Commissioners recommended no changes to either constituency as initially proposed, and we agreed with them.
As mentioned previously in the section on Norfolk, we received more than 80 representations about the Waveney Valley constituency. Although there was some support, the majority, by far, were in opposition. Most of these were very similar, claiming that the constituency is geographically too large, with too many local authorities involved, and that there is no link between the various areas.
Very few representations were received to our revised proposals for the Bury St Edmunds and West Suffolk constituencies, with most comments received being linked to the revised Waveney Valley constituency and, consequently, most were in opposition. One representation requested that Bury St Edmunds should be named Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Very few representations were received with respect to the following proposed constituencies, with very low levels of objection and no new evidence or argument identified: Ipswich; Central Suffolk and North Ipswich; Lowestoft; Suffolk Coastal; and South Suffolk. The representations relating to Central Suffolk and North Ipswich were almost exclusively positive.
The cross-county boundary proposed constituency of Waveney Valley is a consequence of the changes made to the sub-regions, which have been well supported, and the arguments for which convinced both the Assistant Commissioners and us as the best solution for the region as a whole. As noted above, we have seen no alternative that would enable a better pattern of constituencies across the region as a whole when measured against the statutory factors, with both our own initial proposals and other alternatives we have seen causing more disruption to existing constituencies and appearing to break local ties in multiple areas.
While we have considered new alternatives and evidence put forward against our revised proposals, we have also noted that, in general, our revised proposals across Suffolk generated little opposition, other than in relation to the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Waveney Valley itself. While there has been conflicting evidence of the strength of community ties within this proposed constituency, we do not believe it is possible to create a better pattern of constituencies across the area as a whole and therefore propose to maintain our revised proposals. Although we have considered the request that the constituency be renamed Eye and Diss, we believe the Waveney Valley name is more reflective of the largely rural nature of the constituency, and has commanded greater support in consultation responses. However, we recommend that the Bury St Edmunds constituency includes a reference to the town of Stowmarket in its name as both towns are located at opposite ends of the constituency.
Our final recommendations for Suffolk are therefore for constituencies of: Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket; Central Suffolk and North Ipswich; Ipswich; Lowestoft; South Suffolk; Suffolk Coastal; Waveney Valley; and West Suffolk. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
