Summary of Consultation Results

Transcription

1 Norfolk and Suffolk East Anglia Devolution Summary of Consultation Results Page 1 of 124

2 Contents 1. Executive Summary Introduction Promoting the consultation Engagement activity prior to formal consultation Engagement activity during and post formal consultation Consultation Methods Residents of Norfolk and Suffolk Businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk Stakeholder engagement Additional engagement Summary of responses Summary of responses from Ipsos MORI representative residents telephone survey Ipsos MORI representative business telephone survey Online consultation responses Written correspondence Norfolk County Council Devolution Leaflet Feedback Form Broadland News Feedback Form Support from key stakeholders Key findings from the consultation Implications Appendices Appendix A The Ipsos MORI Telephone Survey Questions Appendix B The Online Consultation Questions Appendix C Ipsos MORI Telephone Survey Residents Responses Appendix D Ipsos MORI Telephone Survey Business Responses Appendix E The Online Consultation Response Results and Analysis Appendix F The Norfolk County Council Leaflet Appendix G Norfolk County Council Leaflet Response Results and Analysis Appendix H Written Correspondence (Letters and s) Response Results and Analysis Appendix I Stakeholder Responses Appendix J - Table of engagement events across Norfolk and Suffolk Appendix K General feedback on the consultation process Page 2 of 124

3 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Twelve local authorities across Norfolk and Suffolk and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership have undertaken an extensive consultation exercise with residents and businesses about a set of proposals for devolving to local government some of the powers that currently sit with central government. 1.2 Following some pre-consultation engagement with stakeholders, a full consultation ran from 8 July to 23 August 2016, using a variety of approaches to get a wide cross-section of views. 1.3 This summary of consultation responses brings together the consultation methods used, the responses received and the findings. Background 1.4 In June 2016 Babergh District Council, Broadland District Council, Forest Heath District Council, Ipswich Borough Council, King s Lynn West Norfolk Borough Council, Norfolk County Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Norfolk District Council, St.Edmundsbury Borough Council, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council, Waveney District Council and the New Anglia Enterprise Partnership (the LEP ), all agreed to endorse the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution Proposal, with accompanying Governance Review and Governance Scheme, for public consultation. Methods and Scope of the Consultation 1.5 The Norfolk and Suffolk devolution consultation exercise was planned to provide comprehensive engagement with residents, businesses and other key stakeholders. 1.6 The New Anglia LEP, in conjunction with the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers of Commerce, held a series of breakfast briefings during July and the Chambers of Commerce also produced their own e-newsletters. This activity resulted in a number of leaders from the business and wider public and voluntary sector communities sending letters supporting devolution and nearly 100 organisations endorsing a letter from the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers and the LEP. 1.7 In total more than 10,000 responses were received via a range of channels. The majority of responses, over 6,000, were received via a telephone survey carried out by Ipsos MORI. The survey gained views from a cross section of people, reflecting the population of the two counties. Ipsos MORI also carried out a similar consultation with businesses. 1.8 The same questions were also made available via the East Anglia Devolution website and more than 2,900 people responded. Other responses, from a leaflet from Norfolk County Council to Norfolk residents (over 1,600), from a form from Broadland residents (over 40) and from letters and s (over 100) to the East Anglia Devolution website, were received and analysed. Page 3 of 124

4 Views of residents 1.9 Highlights from Ipsos MORI Residents Consultation 53% supported the principle of devolution while 16% opposed. There was strong support for more decisions to be taken locally across a range of issues with most support being shown for decisions about roads maintenance (85%), a new housing strategy (82%), creating a transport plan (77%) and development of new homes (75%). There was 52% support for a Mayor and 58% support for councils to come together as a Combined Authority. 29% opposed election of a Mayor and 25% opposed establishing a Combined Authority Highlights from Online consultation 50.9% supported the principle of devolution while 38.7% expressed they opposed this. There was strong support for more decisions to be taken locally across a range of issues with most support being shown for decisions about roads maintenance (74.6%), developing a new housing strategy (71%), development of new homes (69.7%) and creating a transport plan (65%). There was 26.7% support for a Mayor and 34.9 % support for councils to come together as a Combined Authority. 62% opposed election of a Mayor and 54.2% opposed establishing a Combined Authority Highlights from leaflet generated feedback, letters and s An analysis of the completed feedback forms, in unstructured text, based on the tone or nature of the comments made, indicated around 80% opposed to devolution. An analysis of the letters, also in unstructured text, based on the tone or nature of the content, indicated around 77% broadly opposed to devolution. Views of business and other organisations 1.12 Highlights from Ipsos MORI Business Consultation 54% supported the principle of devolution while 12% opposed it. Strong support for more decisions to be taken locally across a range of issues with decisions relating to road maintenance funding coming out on top. 59% supported councils joining together as a Combined Authority and 47% supportive of a mayor, with 27% opposed. Letters of support from business and the wider public and voluntary sectors 1.13 Business leaders with interests in Norfolk and Suffolk and leaders from the wider public and voluntary sector sent letters supporting devolution. Over 80 businesses and business organisations endorsed a letter from the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers and the LEP to the independent chair of the East Anglia Page 4 of 124

5 Leaders Group, endorsing the devolution proposals as supporting the delivery of crucial projects to support economic growth, improve infrastructure and empowering the next generation with the skills to drive the economy. In addition, more than 20 businesses and business organisations wrote individual letters of support. Many letters of support were also received from the wider public sector and the voluntary sector including a number of higher education establishments, the University of East Anglia, the University of Suffolk, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Visit East Anglia and Community Action Norfolk. 2. Introduction 2.1 In September 2015, in response to an invitation from Government, councils in Norfolk and Suffolk submitted expressions of interest and a commitment to work together for the devolution of central government functions to local government. An East Anglian devolution deal, which recognised the economic links between Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, was then developed. It was formally announced in the March 2016 Budget. 2.2 Council leaders in East Anglia considered the most effective way to drive and streamline economic growth in the area and a Governance Review was commenced, considering options available for improving the exercise of functions in East Anglia. In carrying out the Governance Review and reflecting on what would be best for local people, it was decided to pursue two distinct devolution deals one for Norfolk and Suffolk and one for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. This approach is intended to provide opportunity for strategic join up between the two areas, for example on infrastructure, transport and skills whilst retaining local economic geographies. 2.3 In June 2016, the proposed Norfolk/Suffolk deal was endorsed by the following councils: Babergh District Council, Broadland District Council, Forest Heath District Council, Ipswich Borough Council, King s Lynn West Norfolk Borough Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, Norfolk County Council, South Norfolk District Council, St Edmundsbury District Council, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council, Waveney District Council and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (the LEP ). Those 12 councils (the Constituent Councils ) and New Anglia LEP agreed to consult residents and other stakeholders across Norfolk and Suffolk on the proposals. Four of the district councils, Breckland District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, North Norfolk District Council and Norwich City Council, decided not to endorse the proposals for public consultation and thereby opted out of the area of the proposed Combined Authority but the consultation was open to all of Norfolk and Suffolk s residents during the consultation period. Page 5 of 124

6 2.4 Norfolk and Suffolk share a unique geography and a mix of urban, rural and coastal communities close to but very distinct from London with a firm focus beyond our borders both within the UK and internationally, with our Europe facing world class energy coastline and the UK s largest container port. The two counties represent a 34billion economy and one of the fastest growing areas of the UK. We also have the potential to grow our economy faster, with strengths in key sectors such as: agri-tech, food and health, energy and the digital economy. To this end the devolution agreement would support the delivery across Norfolk and Suffolk of: 95,000 new jobs for Norfolk and Suffolk residents GVA growth of 11bn from 32bn to 43bn by ,000 new homes by 2036, for our growing population 10,000 new businesses supporting economic growth by Devolution offers a generational opportunity to accelerate growth in the local and national economy whilst improving the life chances and quality of life for every resident in Norfolk and Suffolk. 2.5 The key elements of the deal are shown in the table below: Summary of devolution arrangements endorsed by Government, the Constituent Councils and New Anglia LEP A new, directly elected Mayor to chair the Norfolk and Suffolk Combined Authority and exercise the following devolved powers and functions: Responsibility for a multi-year, consolidated and devolved local transport budget Responsibility for a new Key Route Network of local authority roads that will be managed and maintained by the Combined Authority on behalf of the Mayor Powers over strategic planning and housing, including 100m (out to 20/21) ring-fenced funding to deliver an ambitious target of new homes, the responsibility to create a nonstatutory spatial framework for Norfolk and Suffolk and to develop with government a Land Commission and to chair The Norfolk and Suffolk Joint Assets Board for economic assets. A new Norfolk and Suffolk Combined Authority, working with the Mayor, to exercise the following devolved powers and functions: Control of a new additional 25m a year funding allocation over 30 years to be invested in a Norfolk and Suffolk Single Investment Fund to boost growth. Recognising the housing market conditions in Norwich and Ipswich, Government will provide the Combined Authority with an additional 30m over five years split equally for Norwich City and Ipswich Borough to meet their housing needs Responsibility for chairing an area-based review of 16+ skills provision, the outcomes of which will be taken forward in line with the principles of the devolved arrangements, and devolved 19+ adult skills funding from 2018/19 Page 6 of 124

7 Joint responsibility with the government and the single Employment and Skills Board covering the Norfolk and Suffolk Combined Authority and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to co-design the new National Work and Health Programme designed to focus on those with a health condition or disability and the very long term unemployed. Further powers as may be agreed over time and included in future legislation. 2.6 The agreement is subject to setting up a Mayoral Combined Authority. It would be chaired by the Mayor, chosen by the residents of the proposed Combined Authority, and the membership will comprise an elected councillor from each of the Constituent Councils plus a member from New Anglia LEP. 2.7 The process to create a Mayoral Combined Authority is set out in statute. The Constituent Councils have conducted a Governance Review, published a Scheme of Governance and carried out wide-ranging public consultation and engagement on the proposals contained in the Scheme. 2.8 This report provides the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with a summary of the responses received through the consultation and engagement exercise, to which the Secretary of State will have regard in deciding whether to lay in Parliament an Order for the creation of a Norfolk and Suffolk Mayoral Combined Authority. 3. Promoting the consultation A range of engagement activities have been undertaken to explain devolution and the proposals for Norfolk and Suffolk and to encourage residents, businesses and other stakeholder groups to have their say. Examples of those activities, both before and after the publication of the Scheme and the launch of the consultation on 8 July 2016, are given below. 3.1 Engagement activity prior to formal consultation Residents A Suffolk-wide telephone survey conducted by Ipsos MORI of 1,820 residents aged 18+, undertaken between 20 and 30 May The aim was to measure residents understanding of devolution, their views on the proposed East Anglia agreement and their priorities for the Combined Authority. Business A dinner for New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership Board members, hosted by the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia. Stakeholder groups Briefing sessions for the Norfolk Association of Local Councils A briefing session to Community Action Norfolk Systems Leads Parish liaison meetings across Norfolk and Suffolk. Page 7 of 124

8 MPs New Anglia LEP coordinated communication and engagement with local MPs. This included briefing sessions, hosting a Parliamentary event at Westminster and presentations to MPs. Councils also engaged their MPs through letters and other methods. Councillors Various briefings for councillors including Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) facilitated sessions in every District area in Norfolk and Suffolk. Staff Briefing sessions to staff across all Norfolk and Suffolk councils 3.2 Engagement activity during and post formal consultation Consultation documents The following supporting documents were made available throughout the consultation period on the East Anglia Devolution Website with all Constituent Councils providing a link on their home websites. All documents were available to download: The Devolution Deal the agreement outlining the devolved functions Norfolk and Suffolk would have if devolution went ahead The Norfolk and Suffolk Governance Review an analysis of evidence, including travel to work areas and commuting flows and a review of available governance options for improving the exercise of functions across the area reflecting on what would be best for local people and deliver the targeted growth The Scheme of Governance a scheme describing the functions devolved, the respective roles of the Mayor and the Combined Authority and the proposed governance arrangements A Consultation Information Document containing information about how we were consulting The Consultation Document, made available in a variety of formats such as large print and easy read (and available in hard copy) Frequently Asked Questions. Communications activity There has also been regular coverage in local (with circulation totalling over 100,000), regional and specialist media that includes print, broadcast and digital which has been monitored and responded to on a daily basis. In addition we have used: Supporting public relations to signpost people to the website Usual Council channels to engage with elected members through meetings, specific briefings and newsletters Liaison with key stakeholders through regular or specifically scheduled meetings and events. Page 8 of 124

9 3.3 Consultation Methods Residents of Norfolk and Suffolk We consulted with the residents of Norfolk and Suffolk during the period 8 July 2016 to 23 August 2016 through a variety of channels including telephone and online surveys, leafleting and publications. Details of each consultation method are set out below. i. Telephone survey We commissioned independent market research company Ipsos MORI to develop questions and conduct a telephone survey of residents. The interviews were carried out between 13 July and 22 August This was planned to deliver a representative 380 telephone interviews per district. To ensure statistical robustness residents were selected from different age ranges, gender, employment status, ethnicity, tenure and disability. In all, 6,080 interviews were carried out across Norfolk and Suffolk, ensuring a representative sample so that the opinions gathered reflect those of the wider population, hence allowing extrapolation from the sample survey to the whole population. The distribution of these interviews was spread across the 2 counties (3,040 each) through the districts as shown in the table 1 below. Table 1. Telephone survey respondents home council The consultation questions were designed by Ipsos MORI to take residents through a conversation about devolution in a logical order, asking people for their understanding and views on devolution in principle before asking questions about the published Scheme of Governance. Page 9 of 124

10 There was a mixture of closed, quantitative questions and open qualitative questions. Residents were asked at the end of the telephone survey whether there was anything else they wanted to add to what was discussed. The Ipsos MORI telephone survey questions are included as Appendix A. A summary of the telephone survey responses from representative residents is at Section 4.1 with the complete schedule of results in Appendix C. ii. Online consultation An online consultation was hosted on the East Anglia Devolution website ( with links from the websites of each of the Constituent Councils. People were encouraged to read the Governance Scheme and the other supporting documents before completing the online survey. Although those who responded to the online consultation were self-selecting and therefore not statistically representative of the population in the same way as the telephone survey, the survey was designed using the Ipsos MORI telephone survey template and wherever possible matches the version used for Suffolk and Norfolk with the only changes being those required due to the differing methodology. The survey asks 14 questions regarding the devolution proposals, in a mixture of closed and free text forms. These were followed by 15 standard Equality & Diversity questions and other questions related to demography. The age profile of our population and the age profile of the respondents to the online survey are shown in table 2 below. In total, Suffolk and Norfolk received 2,925 online and hardcopy survey responses. At a county level Suffolk received 1,392 responses and Norfolk 1,528. Five respondents did not select any district council area. The comparison of this response with that of the telephone survey response by district is shown in table 3 overleaf. Page 10 of 124

11 Profile of online survey respondents against the demography of Norfolk & Suffolk profile (2015 ONS predictions) 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under % of total Norfolk & Suffolk population % of on-line respondents Table 2. Profile of online survey respondents against Norfolk & Suffolk demography Number of respondents by survey type by district Online MORI Table 3. Number of respondents by type by district The online consultation questions are in Appendix B. A summary of the online consultation responses is included in Section 4.3 and the online survey results are contained in Appendix E. iii. Making the consultation accessible to residents The consultation document was made available in a variety of formats, such as paper copy, Large Print and Easy Read on request to make it accessible as widely as possible. Page 11 of 124

12 Hard copies were also available at council sites across the area including libraries. The consultation followed a similar format to the telephone survey with the same ordering of questions. However, given the online methodology, there was more opportunity for people to answer open questions relating to their views on setting up a combined authority, decision-making and accountability. Also, whereas some demographic questions were included at the start of the telephone survey to ensure a representative sample was reached, the online survey concluded with these. The consultation and the methods of responding were promoted through a variety of mechanisms to maximise both the overall response rate and demographic range of the two counties. The promotion channels included: County, District and Borough websites Social Media Twitter, Facebook Press Releases to Suffolk and Norfolk Media Voluntary Sector Organisations Town and Parish Councils Communications with staff and councillors Adverts in the Press Promotion through Libraries. iv. Written responses In addition to the telephone and online consultation channels we offered people the opportunity to respond to the consultation by or in writing. Stakeholders often chose to respond in this way by submitting a group response. Examples of such groups include; Suffolk Association of Local Councils and Norfolk Association of Local Councils Unison Eastern Region East Anglia Federation of Small Businesses Orwell Ahead East of England CBI CPRE (Norfolk) Older People s Strategic Partnership City College Norwich Students' Union. This also enabled people who felt constrained by the online survey to express their views in the order and format that they wished to. All s and letters have been reviewed and a summary of these responses is included at Section 4.4. Page 12 of 124

13 v. Information leaflets and feedback forms Norfolk County Council produced an information leaflet about devolution, attached at Appendix F, which was delivered to households across Norfolk between 18 and 29 July. Royal Mail undertook to deliver to 90% of homes in the county. Additional copies were available at County Council outlets including all Norfolk County Council libraries. This information leaflet promoted the consultation and encouraged residents to take part in the online consultation. It also included a Feedback Form and freepost address so that residents could comment on the proposals outlined in the leaflet. All feedback forms received were entered onto a database, reviewed and a summary of responses is included in Section 4.5. Broadland District Council included information about devolution in their Summer Edition of Broadland News that was distributed to 58,500 homes in the Broadland area on 18 July. They also included a one page feedback form and freepost address. All responses were reviewed and input into the analysis for the Norfolk County Council leaflet, thus using the same coding structure. vi. Consultation process queries and feedback We received a number of questions about devolution and also comments about the consultation process itself. Where possible, we responded directly to people s questions and made whatever adjustments we could to the process to enable people to participate in the consultation. A summary of the questions dealt with and the feedback is included in Appendix K Businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk We consulted with businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk through a variety of channels, details of which are set out below. i. Business briefings The New Anglia LEP in conjunction with the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers of Commerce held a series of three breakfast briefings during July Support for devolution was offered by a number of business and this is summarised in Section 4.7. Delegates were given details of the online consultation and invited to respond. The Chairs of the New Anglia LEP and Chambers of Commerce agreed to write to government in support of devolution and offered businesses the Page 13 of 124

14 opportunity to lend their support to that letter. The Chairs also wrote to the MDs/CEOs of the top 100 businesses in Norfolk and Suffolk, asking for their support for the letter to government and inviting them to write letters to government themselves. A number of business leaders, including the chairs of New Anglia LEP s sector boards for advanced manufacturing, building growth and tourism, sent their own letters to government supporting devolution. New Anglia LEP also produced an e-newsletter giving details of the devolution deal, the consultation and New Anglia LEP s support for it, which was opened by more than 1,500 subscribers. In addition, New Anglia LEP s Twitter account was used to send tweets with similar information, attracting more than 13,000 unique engagements over the final week of the consultation period. The Chambers of Commerce also produced their own e-newsletters. The Norfolk Chamber s newsletter was sent to around 2,800 business members and the Suffolk Chamber s newsletter to their business members (c 11,600). ii. Business telephone survey Ipsos MORI conducted a telephone survey of 252 businesses across Norfolk (124) and Suffolk (128). Interviews were conducted between 8 and 21 August In order for the sample to broadly reflect the business populations of Norfolk and Suffolk, loose quotas were set on business size (micro (1 to 10 employees) to large (over 250 employees)). The business sample also aimed to broadly reflect the makeup of industry sectors in Norfolk and Suffolk. A summary of the responses from the business telephone survey is included in Section Stakeholder engagement We have engaged with key stakeholders across the public sector through a series of events across Norfolk and Suffolk, for example with the Associations of Local Councils, as well as through business as usual activities such as regular partnership meetings and cross sectoral forums Additional engagement A comprehensive communications and engagement programme supported the public consultation to ensure that residents, businesses and organisational stakeholders were aware of the consultation and could have their say. A variety of communication channels, events and methods were used as part of the engagement programme across Norfolk and Suffolk to raise Page 14 of 124

15 awareness, inform and engage. These were delivered by a wide range of personnel including leaders, members, chief executives and staff of the councils and New Anglia LEP as well as Andy Wood (Independent Chair of the East Anglia Devolution Leaders Group), chief executives of the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers and communications teams. The totality of the engagement events are captured in Appendix J but in summary they included: A series of formal briefings and events with the public, business, private, educational and third sector communities and MPs across the region. These include: the two Chambers of Commerce, parish councils, community forums, CVS organisations, the universities across the area and member and staff briefings Hosting of a Parliamentary event at Westminster and presentations to MPs Through social media, using a specific website and Twitter and Facebook accounts seen by over 33,000 people Engagement with rail commuters and town centre events. 4. Summary of responses We received over 11,000 consultation responses through the various methods listed above (see table 4 overleaf). The responses from each strand of consultation are summarised below. Consultation responses by type MORI Residents Telephone Survey MORI Business Telephone Survey Online consultation survey (includes hardcopy returns too) Broadland Magazine and feedback form Norfolk County Council Leaflet and feedback form Letters/ s Table 4. Number of respondents by type Page 15 of 124

16 4.1 Summary of responses from Ipsos MORI representative residents telephone survey Ipsos MORI undertook 6080 telephone interviews spread across Norfolk and Suffolk and depicted in table 5 below. Table 5. Number of telephone interviewees by district Q1 Residents were asked how much, if anything, would they say they knew about devolution within England. 23% said they knew a great deal or a fair amount, 40% said they knew just a little and 14% had never heard of it. Q2 We asked residents to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed the principle of devolution 53% supported the principle and 16% opposed it. The responses from across the area are detailed in table 6 below. Page 16 of 124

17 To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Norfolk Suffolk Norwich City South Norfolk Great Yarmouth Broadland North Norfolk Breckland Kings Lynn & Ipswich Suffolk Coastal Waveney Mid Suffolk Babergh St Edmundsbury Forest Heath Support Oppose Table 6. Telephone respondents view on Q2 - residents Q3 We asked, across a range of functions specified in the deal document, whether residents thought decisions were better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority. In all 13 functions listed a majority of residents surveyed thought that decisions would be better made locally with the highest majority (85%) thinking that roads maintenance decisions should be made locally and the lowest majority (53%) thinking that designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work should be carried out locally. Q4 Residents were asked to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal. 52% supported the election of a mayor for those purposes and 29% opposed. The responses from across the area are detailed in table 7 below. Page 17 of 124

18 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? Support Oppose Table 7. Telephone respondents view on Q4 - residents Q5 We asked residents to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which would be chaired by a directly elected Mayor. Residents answered that 58% supported the councils becoming part of a Combined Authority and 25% opposed. The responses from across the area are detailed in table 8 below. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected Mayor? Support Oppose Table 8. Telephone respondents view on Q5 - residents Page 18 of 124

19 Q6 In response to Q5, telephone respondents were asked why they say that. The largest percentage 19%, gave reasons that this could/will give experienced/knowledgeable local councillors control/accountability/responsibility on local issues. The next largest, at 9%, thought it could/will give local government a chance to work together/join up. Q7 We asked to what extent, if at all, did residents agree or disagree with certain aspects of decision making referenced in the Scheme. Residents responded to the proposals as follows: That each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote: 77% agreed and 11% disagreed That a directly elected mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress proposals: 89% agreed and 7% disagreed That some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree and that the majority must include the mayor: 72% agreed and 19% disagreed. Q8 Residents were asked about how much importance they attributed to the following mechanisms in the Scheme for holding the Combined Authority to account: An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. 66% thought it important and 7% not important This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. 63% thought it important and 8% not important An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority's finances. 82% thought it important and 3% not important Page 19 of 124

20 Residents living in the Combined Authority area being able to directly elect the Mayor. 78% thought it important and 7% not important A Government assessment every five years. 71% thought it important and 7% not important. Q9 Telephone respondents were asked an open question anything else they wanted to say about decision-making. The main response was a nil return, with the next highest, at 6%, stating that being open/honest/transparent with the public/sharing information/publish reports/findings. Q10 We told people about the Combined Authority having a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk and shared with them the different areas in which this money could be spent, reminding them that funds would be limited. We asked them to say how important each of the following are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. We then counted all answers and the mean scores for each policy area are shown in table 9 below. Q10. How important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important? Ensuring young people are either earning or learning Investment in job creation for local people Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband Investment in flood defences and coastal protection Investment in supporting local businesses Mean scores Base: All valid responses (6080) : Fieldwork dates: 13 th July to 22 nd August 2016 Ipsos MORI Public Affairs Source: Ipsos MORI DBS Basics Report V4 INTERNAL USE ONLY Table 9. Telephone respondents view on Q10 - residents 21 Page 20 of 124

21 4.2 Ipsos MORI representative business telephone survey Businesses were asked the same telephone questions as the residents. The total number of businesses who responded was 252, 124 based in Norfolk and 128 in Suffolk. Q1 Businesses were asked how much, if anything, would they say they knew about devolution within England. Business knowledge of devolution within England was broadly similar to residents knowledge.19% said they knew a great deal or a fair amount, 44% said they knew just a little and 12% had never heard of it. Q2 We asked businesses to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed the principle of devolution. 54% of businesses supported the principle while 12% opposed. This is detailed in table 10 below. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total Norfolk Suffolk Support Oppose Table 10. Telephone respondents view on Q2 - business Q3 We asked, across a range of functions specified in the deal document, whether businesses thought decisions would be better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority. In 12 of the 13 functions listed a clear majority of businesses surveyed thought that decisions would be better made locally with the highest majority (85%) thinking that roads maintenance decisions should be made locally, the same percentage as residents, but only 49% of businesses thinking that designing a new programme to support those Page 21 of 124

22 with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work should be carried out locally. Q4 We asked businesses to what extent, if at all, did they support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal. 47% of businesses supported the election of a mayor (fewer than the 52% of residents) and 27% opposed it. This is detailed in table 11 below. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total Norfolk Suffolk Support Oppose Table 11. Telephone respondents view on Q4 - business Q5 We asked to what extent, if at all, did businesses support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected Mayor. The response from business was similar to the response from residents with 54% in support and 23% opposing. This is detailed in table 12 overleaf. Page 22 of 124

23 To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected Mayor? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total Norfolk Suffolk Support Oppose Table 12. Telephone respondents view on Q5 - business Q6 Businesses were asked why they chose the answer they did. The most commonly mentioned positive comment about the principle of a Combined Authority from businesses is that it may give experienced and knowledgeable local Councillors control over local issues (16%). The most commonly mentioned negative issue is that the principle could or would create another layer of bureaucracy (10%). Q7 We asked to what extent, if at all, did businesses agree or disagree with aspects of how decisions would be made. The business response was very similar to the residents on all aspects of decision-making with a very high percentage (89%) believing that the mayor should not take decisions alone. Q8 We asked businesses how important, if at all, were scrutiny, audit and gateway functions in holding the Combined Authority to account. These did not appear to be nearly as important for businesses as they were for residents with only between 42% and 57% of the businesses telephoned considering these to be important compared to 62% to 82% of residents. Q9 We ask if there were any other ways in which they thought the Combined Authority should be held to account. Page 23 of 124

24 Nearly half of businesses (48%) do not think there are any other methods, or could not think of alternative, whilst nearly a quarter (23%) don t know. The most frequently mentioned suggestion was that the Combined Authority should be held to account by being open/honest/transparent with information and that they should publish reports and findings (8%). Q10 We told business about the Combined Authority having a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk and shared with them the different areas in which this money could be spent, reminding them that finds would be limited. We asked them to say how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. We then counted all answers from 0 to 4 as not important and 5 to 10 as important. Generally businesses attributed less importance to each priority, save for ensuring young people were earning or learning where 72% considered it an important priority for the single pot. 4.3 Online consultation responses We received 2,935 responses, online and in hard copy, to the online version of the consultation. Q1 Was a demographic question about where the respondents lived. Table 13 identifies each online respondents home district Online respondents by District Table 13. Online respondents by district Page 24 of 124

25 Q2 Online respondents were asked how much, if anything, would they say they knew about devolution within England. 50.8% stated they knew a great deal or fair amount a considerably higher percentage than those questioned by Ipsos MORI whilst 10.3% stated they had heard little or nothing about it. Q3 We asked online respondents to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed the principle of devolution 51% stated that they support the principle of devolution whilst 39% expressed that they opposed this. Q4 We asked, across a range of functions specified in the deal document, whether online respondents thought decisions were better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority In 11 of 13 functions listed a clear majority of respondents thought that decisions would be better made locally with the highest majority (75%) thinking that roads maintenance decisions should be made locally (the top priority across all consultations) with only 42% thinking that designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work should be carried out locally and only 49% thinking that flood defences and coastal management should be for local decision. Q5 Online respondents were asked to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal. 27% of respondents supported the election of a mayor whilst 62% were opposed. The online respondents demonstrated considerably more opposition to a mayor than the Ipsos MORI respondents (where 29% of residents and 27% of businesses opposed). Q6 In response to Q5, online respondents were asked why they say that. Opposing an elected Mayor, the largest percentage 42%, gave reasons relating to being a waste of money, with monies being better spent on services, and creating an extra layer of government. The next largest, at 18% in support of a Mayor, thought it was important to have a single figurehead, democratically elected. Page 25 of 124

26 Q7 Online respondents were asked to what extent, if at all, they supported or opposed participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which would be chaired by a directly elected Mayor. 35% supported the proposal of becoming part of a combined authority with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk compared with 54.2% who opposed this. The online respondents showed considerably less enthusiasm for a Combined Authority than the sample of residents and businesses selected by Ipsos MORI. Q8 In response to Q7, online respondents were asked why they said that. The greatest number of online respondents gave reasons opposing a Combined Authority based on the authority being too big and losing local feel. The next largest grouping, 24% were supportive, thinking that a Combined Authority might benefit decision-making and democracy. Q9 We asked to what extent, if at all, did online respondents agree or disagree with certain aspects of decision making referenced in the Scheme. Residents responded to the proposals as follows: - That each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote: 64% agreed and 22% disagreed - That a directly elected mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress proposals: 74% agreed and 15% disagreed - That some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree and that the majority must include the mayor: 55% agreed and 28% disagreed. Like the Ipsos MORI respondents, residents and businesses, the online respondents strongly agreed or tended to agree that the mayor should not make decisions alone and would require support from members of the Combined Authority. Page 26 of 124

27 Q10 Online respondents were asked an open question anything else they wanted to say about decision-making. Their responses were analysed and grouped as in table 14 below. Page 27 of 124 % of respondents Number of respondents Theme Against Combined Authority/ Devolution/Want Status Quo 22.2% 263 Against Mayor 12.7% 151 Slow/Too remote decision-making 4.0% 48 Another layer of government/waste of money 12.4% 147 Need a referendum 2.0% 24 Get on with it/comments in Favour 5.0% 59 Mayor should have a proper role/power/be 19.5% 231 impartial Agree to devolution but don't want a Mayor 3.5% 41 Councils are not competent enough 2.2% 26 Must be accountable 5.5% 65 Other 11.1% 132 Table 14. Online respondents view on Q10 Q11 We asked online respondents about how much importance they attributed to the following mechanisms in the Scheme for holding the Combined Authority to account: - An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. 85% thought it was important and 8% not important - This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. 84% thought it important and 10% not important - An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority's finances. 89% thought it important and 5% not important - Residents living in the Combined Authority area being able to directly elect the Mayor. 68% thought it important and 16% not important - A Government assessment every five years. 62% thought it important and 14% not important. *The percentages given for important represent the total number of respondents who considered something to be extremely, very or fairly

28 important. The percentages given for not important are the total of those who considered something to be not very or not at all important. Q12 Online respondents were asked another open question are there any other ways in which you think the Combined authority should be held to account. The responses to the question were analysed and grouped in themes as shown in table 15 below. Theme % of Number of respondents respondents Concerns over Cost/Layers of Government/Bureaucracy 16.5% 184 Peer/Government Review 3.7% 41 Against a Combined Authority 24.7% 277 Transparency/ Published Data 11.0% 123 Involve the public/elections/no confidence votes/public meetings 18.4% 207 All members accountable 6.9% 78 Audit/independent scrutiny committee 11.6% 130 Other 7.3% 82 Table 15. Online respondents view on Q12 Q13 We asked online respondents to say how important each of the following are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important: Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband Investment in job creation for local people Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people Investment in supporting local businesses Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed. Investment in flood defences and coastal protection Ensuring young people are either earning or learning We then counted all answers and the highest mean average score here was 7.8 for Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband, followed by 7.5 for Investment in job creation for local people and 7.4 for Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people. Q14 We asked online respondents if they wanted to add anything else to their responses. The responses were analysed and group into themes as shown in table 16 below. Page 28 of 124

29 Theme % of respondents Number of respondents Prefer unitary/power devolved to districts/status quo 10.9% 114 Should improve services/areas want to see investment 21.1% 221 Cost increase/too much bureaucracy/too remote 16.1% 169 Oppose combined authority/mayor 17.2% 180 Transparency/communication/public engagement 4.3% 45 Referendum/democratic vote needed 1.6% 17 Will make area isolated/should not just be Norfolk and Suffolk/include all areas in 7.9% 83 Norfolk Concerns re New Anglia LEP/business involvement 1.9% 20 All areas to be treated equally/large towns should not get most of money 3.9% 41 Support/positive comments 2.3% 24 Other 12.8% 134 Table 16. Online respondents view on Q14 The highest number of additional comments, 21%, were themed around the opportunity that the arrangements offered for investment in Norfolk and Suffolk and improvements to services. 4.4 Written correspondence In total 112 letters and s were received. All the s and letters were analysed to ascertain if the sender opposed or supported devolution, based on tone or nature of the comments made. This resulted in 77% of letters and s broadly opposed to devolution, with 23% in support. 4.5 Norfolk County Council Devolution Leaflet Feedback Form This leaflet went to 406,345 households and an additional 1,650 were sent to County Council outlets including all Norfolk County Council libraries. In total 1,678 completed forms were received by the close of the consultation period (all returns received by 26 August to allow for the postal process). As the responses were unstructured text (freeform) they were analysed to ascertain if the sender opposed or supported devolution, based on the tone or nature of the comments made. This resulted in 80% of responses seen as opposed to devolution with 21% in support. Page 29 of 124

30 In analysing the underlying themes of the responses the key issue raised was the desire to not create another layer of bureaucracy/cost, with 38% (635) highlighting this as a concern. The top 4 themes are shown in table 17 below % 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Thematic highlights from Norfolk County Council Leaflet 37.80% Don't want another layer of bureaucracy/costs 4.6 Broadland News Feedback Form Table 17. Top 4 themes from free format leaflet returns Broadland District Council included a four-page article about the devolution proposals in the Summer Edition of Broadland News distributed to 58,500 households in the Broadland area from 18 July This included a one-page feedback form with freepost address. In total 44 responses were received before the consultation closed and all responses received before the consultation closed on 23rd August were included in the results. All the responses were analysed to ascertain if the sender opposed or supported Devolution, based on the tome or nature of comments made. This resulted in 38 responses seen as opposed to Devolution, with 6 in support. 4.7 Support from key stakeholders 12.80% 12.50% 10.40% Don't want devolution Positive comments Don't see need for a mayor Over 150 different organisations wrote in support of devolution. These organisations included businesses, large and small, public sector organisations and representative groups. Over 80 businesses lent their support to a letter from the LEP and the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers of Commerce to the chair of the East Anglia Leaders Group. That letter is attached at Appendix I and includes the following: The devolution deal will help us deliver many more of the crucial projects we need to support our economic growth, improving infrastructure from road and rail links to high speed broadband and mobile coverage, offering funding and advice to support business, and empowering the next generation with the skills to drive our economy Page 30 of 124

31 In addition, more than 20 businesses and business organisations wrote individual letters. Strong support for the proposals was received from the Norfolk and Suffolk Chambers of commerce, the CBI, the UEA, the university of Suffolk, the east of England Energy Group, Norfolk and Suffolk CCG s, Anglian Water, the Aviation Skills Partnership, Barclays and Lloyds banks, Aviva, Seajacks, Hutchison Ports, Persimmon Homes, PwC, various voluntary organisations, business federations and many of the region s leading law, finance, accountancy, consultancy and other professional practices. These organisations endorsed the proposals set out in the devolution deal and the Scheme as being of benefit to Norfolk and Suffolk. In total, businesses supporting the proposals represent more than 82,000 employees and a turnover in excess of 8bn, equating to more than 25% of the area s entire GVA. Here are some extracts from those letters: Norwich Chamber Council strongly believes that the devolution deal offers our region a prime opportunity to secure funding to enable the local business community to deliver greater economic growth, jobs and a better future for Norwich and Norfolk, whilst having the ability to make decisions at a local level. Norfolk Training Services believes that the increased funding on infrastructure and housing and greater control over transport and skills budget will mean much to our business it will develop and support opportunities for many of the disadvantaged learners for their increased participation in the economy. These proposals will help make sure that the region continues to be a leader in offshore energy Seajacks UK Ltd Suffolk CCG s say Devolution and working with the mayoral combined authority provides more opportunities to join up in the future and for more coherent local service planning. The proposed non-statutory spatial framework will provide a coherent, joined up plan for example, so that new housing developments come with the right infrastructure, school places, access to health services or road and internet connections as well as the appropriate mix of homes. Greater local decision making and funding in these area will help both our business and our supply chain. STM Packaging Group Tin Can Digital Ltd writes As a business in the creative sector the increased funding available for infrastructure and housing projects combined with greater control over transport and skills budgets will enable us to further develop the fast growing digital creative industries sector in the East. Visit East Anglia believes that the visitor economy has the ability to grow faster if we can help develop tourism across the whole year, which in turn would encourage businesses to offer more full time employment, better pay and to up-skill. Devolution can help achieve this. Page 31 of 124

32 Overall, we see devolution as an opportunity for an area that has been poorly served by centralised decisions.devolution is not without its challenges and risks. Community Action Norfolk One of the key issues affecting my business is working more closely with the region s employers to ensure that the appropriate supply of a skilled workforce meets their explicit needs and I think that greater local decision making and funding in these areas will help not just the college but others in the key sectors that drive the economy of Suffolk and Norfolk. Principal, Great Yarmouth College CBI East of England writes Levels of in-work training are particularly poor in the region, which will make improvements to adult skills provision vital. The success of UEA s growth requires coherent and strategic regional investment in housing, roads, rail and business-supporting infrastructure across the region. And I believe that our best chance of achieving this is through the cooperation and investment that the devolution proposals will initiate. The letters contain strong support and endorsement of the proposals for devolution in the area and shared the belief that our best chance of achieving this is through the cooperation and investment that the devolution proposals will initiate. Although recognising that devolution is not without its challenges they see an opportunity for those areas that have been poorly served by centralised decisions, which have not reflected local needs. The business community across Norfolk and Suffolk demonstrated strong support and endorsement of a devolution deal for the East that could help further transform our economy and create even greater opportunities for growth. Many saw the benefit in them being involved in locally decision making and the ability to directly improve the life and prospects of people in the area and believed devolution would be a great step forward for the East. Parish councils across Norfolk and Suffolk have engaged with the devolution discussions and have come together to set out their views through associations. They are keen to create a genuine and proper dialogue around the devolution process and particularly the principle of subsidiarity. They ask that Town and Parish Councils are represented on the Combined Authority to ensure the devolution plans take account of the local impacts and opportunities. Our colleagues across the HE sector have expressed support for devolution and see the potential benefits across all institutions from the highly rated UEA to the newly formed University of Suffolk. The FE sector highlighted the opportunity devolution offers to support growth, jobs and prosperity. The particular opportunity to better align skills with the needs of local employers was welcomed. The health system across Norfolk and Suffolk faces a challenging time with much energy going into the Sustainability and Transformation Planning. Nevertheless Page 32 of 124

33 most of the system recognises the opportunity that devolution would bring to tackle issues directly linked to the wellbeing of our residents and reducing the need for public services. For example, good quality jobs and affordable housing are key to people s economic prosperity and mental health and the housing funding secured provides the ability to improve associated infrastructure, such as GP surgeries. Furthermore the system recognises that this is the start of a process, with complex, national, services coming together at local level. Integrating such services will require re-shaping the whole system, which can only be achieved through careful planning, a shared vision and strong co-operation between local partners. The Devolution Deal signals a commitment to take forward the goal of improving local services and building resilience for future generations. The voluntary sector plays a crucial role across Norfolk and Suffolk. The sector has come together highly effectively to feed its views into this process. They view devolution as offering an enrichment rather than a detraction from local power and offers the opportunity for innovation and reform across the public sector. Nevertheless they recognise it is not without challenges and risks. They are keen to ensure local decision making is truly local, and that the role of the voluntary sector is acknowledged and visible in the governance of the CA, and that any costs associated with the combined authority are minimised. The Norfolk Youth Parliament met to consider the devolution deal and were in favour of devolution and local decision making, and felt that having a Mayor would give Norfolk and Suffolk more profile nationally. A notable quote from the Norfolk Youth parliament: We are in favour of devolution for Norfolk and Suffolk and believe decisions are better made locally. Devolution would also take the pressure away from national government. We support more funding and influence coming into the region and feel that having a mayor would give Norfolk and Suffolk more profile and influence nationally. However, we do feel that devolution would be more effective if all districts participated. 5. Key findings from the consultation 5.1 The majority of people surveyed, whether responding to the demographically selected Ipsos MORI telephone survey or the self-selecting online survey, supported the principle of devolution. In the Ipsos MORI consultation it was 53% of residents and 54% of businesses. In the online consultation it was 50.9% of respondents. The percentages opposing were 16%, 12% and 38.7% respectively. Support for a directly elected mayor is variable. The residents of Norfolk and Suffolk who were included in the telephone survey were 52% in support, with businesses at 49%. In the online survey only 28% supported the election of a mayor for the combined authority and amongst those who responded via the leaflet distributed in Norfolk 10% didn t see the need for a Mayor or thought it would be too costly. Page 33 of 124

34 However, across business, health, housing, education and the voluntary sector there has been strong support for a combined authority with an elected mayor. There was wide endorsement of the once-in-a-generation opportunity presented by the devolution proposals, bringing much needed join-up and local decision-making around infrastructure, housing, skills and health and promoting economic growth and productivity. Where there is opposition or reservations about the proposals the key reasons appear to be cost, duplication and bureaucracy. 5.2 In relation to our questions about decisions being made locally or by the Government in Westminster, a clear majority considered that in almost every area contemplated under the devolution deal decisions would be better made locally. We listed 13 functions that were included as part of the proposal: Developing a housing strategy Building new homes, including affordable housing A transport plan to better coordinate road, rail and bus services Deciding on local spend for roads maintenance Smart ticketing Reviewing further education to provide young people with the skills local employers need Deciding on local spend for apprenticeships and training Deciding on local spend on education and skills training for people aged 19 and over Deciding on local spend on infrastructure projects, such as improving broadband or transport services Joining up health and social care services so that they better support people and reduce pressure on services A programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work Reviewing all land and property held by the public sector and identifying what s available for development Coordinating work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline There was a high level of support for decisions in all of these areas being made locally although support for decisions about designing a programme for supporting people back to work and decisions on flood defences and coastal management being made locally was not as strong. In all cases respondents thought that decisions about roads maintenance were the most important for making at local level with housing strategy and building new homes considered important too. 5.3 A significant majority of residents in both surveys thought that it was important to hold the combined authority to account through scrutiny, audit and monitoring. The proposal for an audit committee to hold the combined Page 34 of 124

35 authority to account had very strong support. Businesses were less concerned but a majority still agreed with the proposals for holding the authority to account. 5.4 Views on the priorities listed in the proposals for spending from single pot were tested. All the areas in the proposals were considered of a reasonable degree of importance to people. Investment in physical infrastructure, in job creation for local people and in public transport were of most importance to people. 5.5 Support for the devolution proposals from a wide range of key stakeholders, from young people in the Youth Parliament through to substantial Norfolk and Suffolk businesses and universities, was strong. Many of the letters from stakeholders supported the conclusions of the Governance Review, that a Combined Authority would improve the exercise of functions across the area. 6. Implications 6.1 All of the above results support the premise that the conclusions of the Governance Review are the right ones for the people of Norfolk and Suffolk and the better exercise of functions across the area. 6.2 Whilst four of the Norfolk authorities elected not to be part of the area of the combined authority consulted upon, from the evidence in the Governance Review and from the views of residents and other stakeholders it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals in the Scheme would improve the exercise of functions in the area of the Combined Authority. The future inclusion of some or all of the four non-participating district councils, were they so minded to propose joining the Combined Authority at a future date, would further strengthen the exercise of the functions but in the meantime we will explore every opportunity to work together with those councils in the delivery of the devolved functions. Page 35 of 124

36 Appendices Appendix A The Ipsos MORI Telephone Survey Questions NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL DEVOLUTION SURVEY FINAL VERSION TELEPHONE SURVEY Your views on the East Anglia Devolution Deal Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is. and I m calling from Ipsos MORI, the research organisation. We are carrying out a survey about some potential changes to local government in Norfolk and Suffolk Could you help by running through some questions at the moment, please? The interview will take around 10 minutes, and this research will be conducted in line with the rules of the Market Research Society s Code of Conduct. Demographics Firstly I am going to ask a few questions about you and your personal situation. ASK ALL S1. In which local authority area do you live? 1. Norfolk County 2. Norwich City 3. South Norfolk 4. Great Yarmouth 5. Broadland 6. North Norfolk 7. Breckland 8. Kings Lynn & West Norfolk 9. Suffolk County 10. Ipswich 11. Suffolk Coastal 12. Waveney 13. Mid Suffolk 14. Babergh 15. St Edmundsbury 16. Forest Heath ASK ALL S2. Are you? Male Page 36 of 124

37 Female Transgender ASK ALL S3. How old are you? WRITE IN AND CODE TO RANGE ASK ALL S4. Which of these activities best describes what you are doing at present? 1. Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per week) 2. Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours per week) 3. Self-employed full or part-time 4. On a government supported training programme (e.g. Modern Apprenticeship/Training for Work) 5. Full-time education at school, college or university 6. Unemployed and available for work 7. Permanently sick/disabled 8. Wholly retired from work 9. Looking after the home 10. Doing something else (please specify) Awareness of devolution ASK ALL Firstly, I would like to ask some questions about devolution, which means transferring powers over budgets and services from central government in Westminster to local councils. This could include the transfer of powers to new groups of councils, called Combined Authorities. 1. Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? Please select one only: A great deal A fair amount Just a little Heard of, but know nothing about Never heard of Don't know The principle of devolution ASK ALL Page 37 of 124

38 Devolution is when certain decision-making powers, as well as funding, are transferred down from Central Government to a local area. In this instance the area is Norfolk and Suffolk. It means that decisions are taken close to where they have an effect. 2. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? Please select one only: Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don't know New powers and responsibilities ASK ALL In Norfolk and Suffolk the proposed devolution agreement includes the creation of a Combined Authority. This would consist of representatives from all of the councils in Suffolk and some of the councils in Norfolk - at this stage, Norfolk County Council, Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council and the Borough Council of King s Lynn and West Norfolk and the Local Enterprise Partnership, which represents the views of local businesses. The Combined Authority Area would cover Suffolk and the Broadland, South Norfolk, and King s Lynn and West Norfolk council areas. The new Combined Authority would not replace any existing councils, or any existing Town or Parish Councils. The proposed agreement would also create the role of a Mayor, who would be directly elected by residents in the Combined Authority Area. 3. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Working with local councils to develop a new strategy for housing and development in line with existing local plans Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally Don t know (DO NOT READ OUT) Page 38 of 124

39 Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally Don t know (DO NOT READ OUT) Deciding how 130m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes, including affordable housing Creating a transport plan for Norfolk and Suffolk that helps to better coordinate road, rail and bus services Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk/ Deciding on the best way to roll out smart ticketing for bus and rail travel across Norfolk and Suffolk. (Smart ticketing involves paying for travel electronically using microchips, either through contactless payments or schemes like the Oyster Card in London.) Reviewing further education in Norfolk and Suffolk to help provide young people aged 16 and over with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training in Norfolk and Suffolk to produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on adult education and skills training in Norfolk and Suffolk for people aged 19 and over to help produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Page 39 of 124

40 Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally Don t know (DO NOT READ OUT) Deciding how funding is spent on infrastructure projects, such as improving broadband or transport services, to support economic growth and create jobs in Norfolk and Suffolk Joining up health and social care services so that they better support people and reduce the pressure on existing services Designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work Reviewing all land and property held by the public sector and creating a list of land and property available for development in Norfolk and Suffolk Coordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline To summarise, the proposed devolution deal includes 750m from Government to invest in infrastructure, economic growth and jobs ( 35m a year for 30 years, reviewed every 5 years) and a total of 130m to invest in housing. The Combined Authority would also receive a single budget for public transport guaranteed for four years, replacing the numerous annual budgets that Government currently provides. Mayor ASK ALL Page 40 of 124

41 The Government has said that a Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk would need to be elected for any new local decision-making powers and/or funding as part of this devolution agreement to be transferred from the Government to the Mayor and/or Combined Authority. The Mayor would work with existing elected members from each of the participating District, Borough and County Councils and a business representative appointed by the Local Enterprise Partnership. 4. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don't know A new Combined Authority with an elected mayor ASK ALL In Norfolk and Suffolk, the Combined Authority would be made up of the directly-elected Mayor, a Councillor from each of the participating District, Borough and County Councils, and an appointed business representative. 5. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk which is chaired by a directly elected Mayor? Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don't know ASK ALL 6. Why do you say that? OPEN ENDED Decision making ASK ALL Page 41 of 124

42 There are proposals for how the Combined Authority and directly elected mayor would take decisions. I am going to read out a number of statements outlining how it is proposed that this will be done 7. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? 1. Each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote. 2. The directly elected mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress their proposals. 3. Some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree. That majority must include the Directly Elected Mayor. Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Accountability ASK ALL Plans will be put in place for how the new Combined Authority will be held to account. I am going to read out a number of statements outlining how it is proposed this will be done. 8. How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? 1. An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. 2. This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. 3. An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority s finances. Page 42 of 124

43 4. Residents living in the Combined Authority area being able to directly elect the Mayor. 5. A Government assessment every five years 1. Essential 2. Very important 3. Fairly important 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 6. Don t know ASK ALL 9. Other than the ways we have just outlined that are already included in the proposed devolution agreement, are there any other ways in which you think the Combined Authority should be held to account? OPEN ENDED Priorities for the proposed Combined Authority ASK THOSE IN NORFOLK/SUFFOLK ONLY 10. The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out the some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband Investment in job creation for local people Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people Investment in supporting local businesses Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed. Investment in flood defences and coastal protection Ensuring young people are either earning or learning Other comments 11. The proposals included in the devolution agreement are intended to improve local services in Norfolk and Suffolk. Is there anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed? WRITE IN Page 43 of 124

44 Demographics ASK ALL 12. What is your ethnic group? White THIS IS A TITLE ONLY 1. English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British 2. Irish 3. Gypsy or Irish traveller 4. Eastern European 5. Any other White background Mixed / multiple ethnic groups THIS IS A TITLE ONLY 6. White and Black Caribbean 7. White and Black African 8. White and Asian 9. Any other Mixed / multiple ethnic background Asian / Asian British THIS IS A TITLE ONLY 10. Indian 11. Pakistani 12. Bangladeshi 13. Chinese 14. Kashmiri 15. Any other Asian background Black / African / Caribbean / Black British THIS IS A TITLE ONLY 16. African 17. Caribbean 18. Any other Black / African / Caribbean background Other ethnic group THIS IS A TITLE ONLY 19. Arab 20. Other ethnic group ASK ALL 13. In which of these ways does your household occupy your current accommodation? 1. Owned outright 2. Buying on mortgage 3. Rent from council 4. Rent from Housing Association/Trust 5. Rent from private landlord 6. Other ASK ALL Page 44 of 124

45 14. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? 1. Yes, limited a lot 2. Yes, limited a little 3. No Page 45 of 124

46 Appendix B The Online Consultation Questions Consultation on the East Anglia Devolution Deal 1. Awareness of devolution 1. Which district council area do you live in / are you based? Please select one only: Suffolk - Babergh District Council Suffolk - Forest Heath District Council Suffolk - Ipswich Borough Council Suffolk - Mid Suffolk District Council Suffolk - St Edmundsbury Borough Council Suffolk - Suffolk Coastal District Council Suffolk - Waveney District Council All across Suffolk Norfolk - Breckland Council Norfolk - Broadland District Council Norfolk - Great Yarmouth Borough Council Norfolk - Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk Norfolk - North Norfolk District Council Norfolk - Norwich City Council Norfolk - South Norfolk Council All across Norfolk Firstly, we would like to ask you some questions about devolution, which means transferring powers over budgets and services from central government in Westminster to local councils. This could include the transfer of powers to new groups of councils, called 'combined authorities'. Page 46 of 124

47 2. Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? Please select one only: A great deal A fair amount Just a little Heard of, but know nothing about Never heard of Don't know 2. The principle of devolution 3. Devolution is when certain decision-making powers, as well as funding, are transferred down from Central Government to a local area. In this instance the area is Norfolk and Suffolk. It means that decisions are taken close to where they have an effect. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? Please select one only: Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don't know 3. New powers and responsibilities In Norfolk and Suffolk the proposed devolution agreement includes the creation of a combined authority. This would consist of representatives from all of the councils in Suffolk and some of the Page 47 of 124

48 councils in Norfolk - at this stage, Norfolk County Council, Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council, the Borough Council of King s Lynn and West Norfolk and the Local Enterprise Partnership, which represents the views of local businesses. The Combined Authority Area would cover Suffolk and the Broadland, South Norfolk, and King s Lynn and West Norfolk council areas. The new Combined Authority would not replace any existing councils, including town or parish councils. The proposed agreement would also create the role of a mayor, who would be directly elected by residents in the Combined Authority Area. 4. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority as described above? Please select one answer on each row: Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally Don't know Working with local councils to develop a new strategy for housing and development in line with existing local plans Deciding how 130m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes, including affordable housing Creating a transport plan for Norfolk and Suffolk that helps to better coordinate road, rail and bus services Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk Deciding on the best way to roll out smart ticketing for bus and rail travel across Norfolk and Suffolk. (Smart ticketing involves paying for travel electronically using microchips, either through contactless payments or schemes like the Oyster Card in London.) Reviewing further education in Norfolk and Suffolk to help provide young people aged 16 and over with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training in Norfolk and Suffolk to produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Page 48 of 124

49 Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally Don't know Deciding how funding is spent on adult education and skills training in Norfolk and Suffolk for people aged 19 and over to help produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on infrastructure projects, such as improving broadband or transport services, to support economic growth and create jobs in Norfolk and Suffolk Joining up health and social care services so that they better support people and reduce the pressure on existing services Designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work Reviewing all land and property held by the public sector and creating a list of land and property available for development in Norfolk and Suffolk Coordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline To summarise, the proposed devolution deal includes 750m from Government to invest in infrastructure, economic growth and jobs ( 25m a year for 30 years, reviewed every five years) and a total of 130m to invest in housing. The Combined Authority would also receive a single budget for public transport guaranteed for four years, replacing the numerous annual budgets that Government currently provides. 4. Directly elected mayor The Government has said that a mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk would need to be elected for any new local decision-making powers and/or funding as part of this devolution agreement to be transferred from the Government to the Mayor and/or Combined Authority. The Mayor would work with existing elected councillors from each of the participating district, borough and county councils and a business representative appointed by the Local Enterprise Partnership. 5. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? Please select one only: Page 49 of 124

50 Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don't know 6. Why do you say that? Please write in below: 5. A new combined authority with an elected mayor In Norfolk and Suffolk the Combined Authority would be made up of the directly-elected Mayor, a councillor from each of the participating district, borough and county councils and an appointed business representative. The new Combined Authority wouldn't just be another layer of local government. It would take on new responsibilities from Whitehall, not duplicate them. Councils would continue as they currently do, to provide services for their own areas. District/Borough/City councils would still take planning decisions on specific sites and approve Local Development Plans. County councils would still be the highways authorities with responsibility for repairs and maintenance. The Combined Authority would only be involved with strategic transport decisions. 7. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected mayor? Please select one only: Page 50 of 124

51 Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don't know 8. Why do you say that? Please write in below: 6. Decision making 9. There are proposals for how the Combined Authority and directly elected Mayor would take decisions. Here are a number of statements outlining how it is proposed this will be done. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? Please select one answer on each row: Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree Tend to Strongly nor disagree disagree disagree Don t know Each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote. The directly elected Mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress their proposals. Page 51 of 124

52 Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree Tend to Strongly nor disagree disagree disagree Don t know Some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree. That majority must include the directly elected Mayor. 10. If there is anything else you want to tell us about decision making, please write in below: 7. Accountability 11. Plans will be put in place for how the new Combined Authority will be held to account. Here are a number of statements outlining how it is proposed this will be done. How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? Please select one answer on each row: Very Fairly Not very Not at all Essential important important important important Don t know An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. Page 52 of 124

53 Very Fairly Not very Not at all Essential important important important important Don t know An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority s finances. Residents living in the Combined Authority Area being able to directly elect the Mayor. A Government assessment every five years. 12. Other than the ways we have just outlined that are already included in the proposed devolution agreement, are there any other ways in which you think the Combined Authority should be held to account? Please write in below: 8. Priorities for the proposed Combined Authority 13. The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. Here is a list of some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please tell us how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Please select one answer in each row: Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband Investment in job creation for local people Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people Page 53 of 124

54 Investment in supporting local businesses Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed. Investment in flood defences and coastal protection Ensuring young people are either earning or learning 9. Other comments about devolution The proposals included in the devolution agreement are intended to improve local services in Norfolk and Suffolk. Is there anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed? Please write in below: 10. About you Personal information, confidentiality and data protection We will process any personal information we receive from you in line with the Data Protection Act This means that Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils will hold your personal data and only use it for the purpose for which it was collected, being this consultation. We use this information to see how representative the feedback is of Norfolk and Suffolk s population. We also use it to see if any particular groups of people are especially affected by devolution. Under our record management policy we will keep this information for five years. We will also, under normal circumstances, not pass your personal data on to anyone else. However, we may be asked under access to information laws to publish or disclose some, or all, of the information you provide in response to this consultation, including any personal information. We will only do this where such disclosure will comply with such relevant information laws which include the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Environmental Information Regulations Page 54 of 124

55 15. Are you responding to this consultation as...? Please select one only: An individual A couple / family A business, organisation or group 16. If a business, organisation or group, please write in which one below: 17. How many members / employees does your business / organisation / group represent? Please write in below: 18. Are you male or female? Please select one only: Male Female Other gender identity (please specify below) Prefer not to say If you have ticked 'other gender identity' then please specify here 19. What is your age? Please select one only: Under Page 55 of 124

56 Prefer not to say 20. Do you consider yourself to be disabled? Please select one only: Yes, limited a lot Yes, limited a little No Prefer not to say 21. What is your ethnic group? Please select one only: White Mixed / multiple ethnic groups Asian/Asian British Black/African/Caribbean/Black British Other ethnic group Prefer not to say Page 56 of 124

57 22. Are you...? Please select one only: English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British Irish Gypsy or Irish traveller Eastern European Any other White background 23. Are you...? Please select one only: White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other Mixed / multiple ethnic background 24. Are you...? Please select one only: Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Kashmiri Any other Asian background 25. Are you...? Please select one only: African Page 57 of 124

58 Caribbean Any other Black/African/Caribbean background 26. Are you...? Please select one only: Other ethnic group Please specify: 27. Which of these activities best describes what you are doing at present? Please select one only: Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per week) Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours per week) Self-employed full or part-time On a government supported training programme (e.g. Modern Apprenticeship/Training for Work) Full-time education at school, college or university Unemployed and available for work Permanently sick/disabled Wholly retired from work Looking after the home Doing something else (please specify below) If you clicked 'doing something else' please specify here: 28. In which of these ways does your household occupy your current accommodation? Please select one only: Page 58 of 124

59 Owned outright Buying on mortgage Rent from council Rent from Housing Association/Trust Rent from private landlord Other 29. What is your postcode? Please write in below: Page 59 of 124

60 Appendix C Ipsos MORI Telephone Survey Residents Responses Total Norfolk Suffolk Base size: Q1. Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? A great deal 3% 3% 3% A fair amount 20% 20% 19% Just a little 42% 42% 42% Heard of, but know nothing about 20% 20% 20% Never heard of 14% 13% 16% Don't know 1% 1% * A great deal/fair amount 23% 23% 22% Base size: Q2. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? Strongly support 18% 17% 18% Tend to support 36% 35% 36% Neither support nor oppose 23% 24% 23% Tend to oppose 9% 9% 9% Strongly oppose 8% 8% 7% Don't know 7% 7% 7% Support 53% 52% 54% Oppose 16% 17% 16% Q3a. Q3b. Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Working with local councils to develop a new strategy for housing and development in line with existing local plans Decisions are better made nationally 18% 18% 18% Decisions are better made locally 82% 82% 82% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how 130m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes, including affordable housing Decisions are better made nationally 25% 24% 26% Decisions are better made locally 75% 76% 74% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) Page 60 of 124

61 Q3d. Q3e. Q3g. Q3h. Q3i. Q3j. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Creating a transport plan for Norfolk and Suffolk that helps to better coordinate road, rail and bus services Decisions are better made nationally 23% 23% 24% Decisions are better made locally 77% 77% 76% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk Decisions are better made nationally 15% 15% 14% Decisions are better made locally 85% 85% 86% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding on the best way to roll out smart ticketing for bus and rail travel across Norfolk and Suffolk. (Smart ticketing involves paying for travel electronically using microchips, either through contactless payments or schemes like the Oyster Card in London.) Decisions are better made nationally 28% 28% 28% Decisions are better made locally 72% 72% 72% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Reviewing further education in Norfolk and Suffolk to help provide young people aged 16 and over with the skills that local employers need Decisions are better made nationally 30% 30% 30% Decisions are better made locally 70% 70% 70% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training in Norfolk and Suffolk to produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Decisions are better made nationally 22% 22% 22% Decisions are better made locally 78% 78% 78% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how funding is spent on adult education and skills training in Norfolk and Suffolk for people aged 19 and over to help produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Decisions are better made nationally 24% 24% 24% Decisions are better made locally 76% 76% 76% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) Page 61 of 124

62 Q3k. Q3l. Q3m. Q3n. Q3o. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how funding is spent on infrastructure projects, such as improving broadband or transport services, to support economic growth and create jobs in Norfolk and Suffolk Decisions are better made nationally 33% 32% 35% Decisions are better made locally 67% 68% 65% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Joining up health and social care services so that they better support people and reduce the pressure on existing services Decisions are better made nationally 33% 34% 33% Decisions are better made locally 67% 66% 67% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work Decisions are better made nationally 47% 47% 48% Decisions are better made locally 53% 53% 52% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Reviewing all land and property held by the public sector and creating a list of land and property available for development in Norfolk and Suffolk Decisions are better made nationally 19% 19% 20% Decisions are better made locally 81% 81% 80% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Coordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline Decisions are better made nationally 36% 35% 36% Decisions are better made locally 64% 65% 64% Base size: Q4. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? Strongly support 21% 21% 22% Tend to support 31% 30% 32% Neither support nor oppose 15% 16% 14% Tend to oppose 12% 12% 12% Strongly oppose 17% 18% 17% Don't know 4% 4% 4% Support 52% 51% 54% Page 62 of 124

63 Oppose 29% 30% 29% Base size: Q5. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected Mayor? Strongly support 23% 23% 23% Tend to support 35% 34% 37% Neither support nor oppose 13% 14% 12% Tend to oppose 10% 11% 10% Strongly oppose 15% 15% 15% Don't know 4% 4% 4% Support 58% 57% 60% Oppose 25% 25% 24% Q7a. Q7b. Q7c. Base size: To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? Each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote. Strongly agree 37% 37% 37% Tend to agree 40% 39% 41% Neither agree nor disagree 9% 9% 8% Tend to disagree 4% 4% 4% Strongly disagree 7% 7% 6% Don't know 3% 4% 3% Agree 77% 76% 79% Disagree 11% 11% 10% Base size: To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? The directly elected mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress their proposals. Strongly agree 69% 69% 70% Tend to agree 19% 19% 19% Neither agree nor disagree 3% 3% 3% Tend to disagree 2% 2% 2% Strongly disagree 5% 5% 4% Don't know 2% 2% 1% Agree 89% 88% 89% Disagree 7% 7% 6% Base size: To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? Some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree. That majority must include the Directly Elected Mayor. Strongly agree 38% 38% 38% Tend to agree 34% 33% 35% Neither agree nor disagree 7% 7% 7% Tend to disagree 10% 11% 9% Strongly disagree 9% 9% 9% Don't know 3% 3% 3% Agree 72% 71% 73% Page 63 of 124

64 Disagree 19% 20% 18% Q8a. Q8b. Q8c. Q8d. Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. Essential 35% 35% 36% Very important 31% 31% 31% Fairly important 23% 22% 23% Not very important 4% 4% 4% Not at all important 3% 3% 3% Don't know 4% 4% 4% Important 66% 66% 67% Not important 7% 8% 7% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. Essential 31% 31% 31% Very important 32% 32% 32% Fairly important 25% 25% 25% Not very important 5% 5% 4% Not at all important 3% 3% 3% Don't know 4% 4% 3% Important 63% 63% 64% Not important 8% 9% 8% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority's finances. Essential 48% 49% 48% Very important 34% 33% 34% Fairly important 12% 12% 12% Not very important 2% 2% 2% Not at all important 2% 2% 2% Don't know 2% 2% 2% Important 82% 82% 82% Not important 3% 4% 3% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? Residents living in the Combined Authority area being able to directly elect the Mayor. Essential 45% 46% 45% Very important 33% 32% 33% Fairly important 12% 12% 12% Not very important 3% 3% 4% Not at all important 4% 4% 3% Don't know 3% 4% 3% Important 78% 78% 78% Page 64 of 124

65 Not important 7% 7% 7% Q8e. Q10a. Q10b. Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? A Government assessment every five years Essential 38% 38% 37% Very important 33% 33% 34% Fairly important 20% 19% 20% Not very important 4% 4% 4% Not at all important 3% 3% 2% Don't know 3% 3% 3% Important 71% 71% 70% Not important 7% 7% 6% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 1% 1% 1% 4 2% 2% 1% 5 8% 9% 8% 6 8% 7% 8% 7 16% 17% 16% 8 29% 28% 30% 9 10% 10% 10% 10 23% 23% 24% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 3% 3% 3% Important 62% 62% 63% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in job creation for local people 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 1% 1% 1% 5 5% 5% 5% 6 6% 6% 6% 7 14% 13% 14% 8 25% 25% 25% 9 14% 15% 14% Page 65 of 124

66 10 32% 31% 32% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 2% 2% 3% Important 72% 72% 71% Q10c. Q10d. Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 1% 1% 1% 3 1% 1% 1% 4 2% 2% 2% 5 7% 8% 7% 6 8% 8% 8% 7 15% 16% 14% 8 21% 21% 22% 9 13% 13% 13% 10 30% 29% 31% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 3% 3% 3% Important 64% 63% 66% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 * 1% * 3 1% 1% 1% 4 2% 2% 2% 5 7% 7% 7% 6 9% 9% 9% 7 16% 16% 16% 8 24% 24% 25% 9 12% 11% 13% 10 26% 27% 26% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 2% 2% 2% Important 63% 62% 63% Base size: Page 66 of 124

67 Q10e. Q10f. Q10g. The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in supporting local businesses 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 1% 1% 1% 3 1% 1% 1% 4 3% 3% 3% 5 11% 11% 11% 6 12% 11% 12% 7 18% 19% 18% 8 23% 24% 21% 9 10% 10% 11% 10 19% 19% 19% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 3% 3% 3% Important 51% 52% 51% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 1% 1% 1% 4 1% 1% 1% 5 7% 7% 6% 6 8% 8% 9% 7 16% 16% 15% 8 23% 22% 24% 9 13% 13% 13% 10 28% 29% 28% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 2% Not important 3% 2% 3% Important 64% 64% 64% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in flood defences and coastal protection 0 1% 1% 1% 1 1% * 1% Page 67 of 124

68 2 1% 1% 1% 3 2% 2% 2% 4 3% 3% 3% 5 8% 8% 9% 6 9% 8% 10% 7 14% 13% 15% 8 20% 20% 20% 9 11% 12% 11% 10 29% 31% 28% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 2% Not important 4% 4% 4% Important 60% 62% 58% Q10h. Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Ensuring young people are either earning or learning 0 1% 1% 1% 1 * * * 2 1% 1% 1% 3 1% 1% 1% 4 1% 1% 1% 5 4% 4% 4% 6 5% 5% 6% 7 10% 11% 10% 8 21% 22% 20% 9 16% 15% 16% 10 39% 38% 39% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 3% 3% 3% Important 75% 75% 75% Page 68 of 124

69 Appendix D Ipsos MORI Telephone Survey Business Responses Total Norfolk Suffolk Base size: Q1. Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? A great deal 3% 4% 2% A fair amount 17% 16% 17% Just a little 44% 48% 41% Heard of, but know nothing 24% 19% 29% about Never heard of 12% 12% 12% Don't know A great deal/fair amount 19% 20% 19% Base size: Q2. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? Strongly support 19% 25% 13% Tend to support 35% 28% 41% Neither support nor oppose 31% 30% 32% Tend to oppose 5% 6% 3% Strongly oppose 7% 6% 8% Don't know 4% 4% 3% Support 54% 53% 54% Oppose 12% 13% 11% Q3a. Q3b. Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Working with local councils to develop a new strategy for housing and development in line with existing local plans Decisions are better made 21% 23% 20% nationally Decisions are better made 79% 77% 80% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how 130m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes, including affordable housing Decisions are better made 21% 25% 18% nationally Decisions are better made 79% 75% 82% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) Page 69 of 124

70 Q3d. Q3e. Q3g. Q3h. Q3i. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Creating a transport plan for Norfolk and Suffolk that helps to better coordinate road, rail and bus services Decisions are better made 26% 26% 27% nationally Decisions are better made locally 74% 74% 73% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk Decisions are better made 15% 16% 14% nationally Decisions are better made 85% 84% 86% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding on the best way to roll out smart ticketing for bus and rail travel across Norfolk and Suffolk. (Smart ticketing involves paying for travel electronically using microchips, either through contactless payments or schemes like the Oyster Card in London.) Decisions are better made 26% 26% 25% nationally Decisions are better made 74% 74% 75% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Reviewing further education in Norfolk and Suffolk to help provide young people aged 16 and over with the skills that local employers need Decisions are better made 29% 30% 28% nationally Decisions are better made 71% 70% 72% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training in Norfolk and Suffolk to produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Decisions are better made 22% 24% 20% nationally Decisions are better made 78% 76% 80% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) Page 70 of 124

71 Q3j. Q3k. Q3l. Q3m. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how funding is spent on adult education and skills training in Norfolk and Suffolk for people aged 19 and over to help produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Decisions are better made 23% 25% 22% nationally Decisions are better made locally 77% 75% 78% Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Deciding how funding is spent on infrastructure projects, such as improving broadband or transport services, to support economic growth and create jobs in Norfolk and Suffolk Decisions are better made 31% 34% 28% nationally Decisions are better made 69% 66% 72% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Joining up health and social care services so that they better support people and reduce the pressure on existing services Decisions are better made 33% 39% 28% nationally Decisions are better made 67% 61% 72% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally 51% 53% 49% 49% 47% 51% Q3n. Base size: (Don't knows excluded) For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Reviewing all land and property held by the public sector and creating a list of land and property available for development in Norfolk and Suffolk Decisions are better made 22% 19% 25% nationally Decisions are better made 78% 81% 75% locally Base size: (Don't knows excluded) Page 71 of 124

72 Q3o. For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority I have just described? Coordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline Decisions are better made 29% 29% 29% nationally Decisions are better made locally 71% 71% 71% Base size: Q4. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? Strongly support 14% 19% 10% Tend to support 33% 30% 35% Neither support nor oppose 23% 21% 26% Tend to oppose 10% 9% 12% Strongly oppose 17% 17% 17% Don't know 2% 5% - Support 47% 48% 45% Oppose 27% 26% 29% Base size: Q5. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected Mayor? Strongly support 21% 24% 18% Tend to support 38% 35% 40% Neither support nor oppose 17% 17% 17% Tend to oppose 10% 9% 12% Strongly oppose 12% 13% 12% Don't know 2% 2% 2% Support 59% 60% 58% Oppose 23% 22% 23% Q7a. Q7b. Base size: To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? Each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote. Strongly agree 33% 36% 30% Tend to agree 45% 37% 53% Neither agree nor disagree 10% 12% 9% Tend to disagree 3% 2% 3% Strongly disagree 6% 7% 5% Don't know 2% 5% - Agree 78% 73% 83% Disagree 9% 10% 9% Base size: To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? The directly elected mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress their proposals. Strongly agree 75% 76% 75% Tend to agree 14% 12% 16% Neither agree nor disagree 5% 5% 5% Tend to disagree 1% 1% 2% Strongly disagree 3% 4% 2% Page 72 of 124

73 Don't know 2% 2% 2% Agree 89% 88% 91% Disagree 4% 5% 3% Q7c. Q8a. Q8b. Q8c. Base size: To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? Some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree. That majority must include the Directly Elected Mayor. Strongly agree 40% 42% 38% Tend to agree 30% 27% 34% Neither agree nor disagree 10% 9% 10% Tend to disagree 9% 7% 10% Strongly disagree 10% 13% 8% Don't know 2% 2% 1% Agree 70% 69% 71% Disagree 19% 20% 18% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. Essential 35% 37% 32% Very important 26% 24% 28% Fairly important 27% 24% 30% Not very important 5% 6% 4% Not at all important 4% 4% 3% Don't know 3% 4% 2% Important 54% 48% 59% Not important 9% 10% 7% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. Essential 29% 28% 30% Very important 28% 29% 27% Fairly important 29% 26% 32% Not very important 6% 8% 5% Not at all important 3% 3% 3% Don't know 4% 6% 3% Important 57% 55% 59% Not important 10% 11% 8% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority's finances. Essential 52% 54% 49% Very important 27% 23% 30% Fairly important 15% 15% 16% Not very important 2% 2% 2% Not at all important 2% 3% 2% Don't know 2% 2% 2% Important 42% 38% 46% Page 73 of 124

74 Not important 4% 6% 3% Q8d. Q8e. Q10a. Q10b. Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? Residents living in the Combined Authority area being able to directly elect the Mayor. Essential 46% 44% 49% Very important 28% 29% 27% Fairly important 14% 10% 17% Not very important 5% 8% 2% Not at all important 4% 4% 3% Don't know 3% 5% 2% Important 42% 40% 44% Not important 9% 12% 5% Base size: How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? A Government assessment every five years Essential 40% 35% 45% Very important 29% 35% 22% Fairly important 18% 14% 22% Not very important 6% 7% 5% Not at all important 5% 6% 4% Don't know 2% 2% 2% Important 46% 49% 44% Not important 11% 13% 9% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband 0 2% 2% 2% * - 1% 3 1% 1% 2% 4 2% 2% 2% 5 8% 9% 8% 6 6% 6% 6% 7 19% 23% 16% 8 27% 23% 31% 9 11% 10% 12% 10 22% 23% 20% Mean Don't know * 1% - Not important 3% 3% 2% Important 60% 56% 63% Base size: 252 The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in job creation for local people 0 1% Page 74 of 124

75 1-2 1% 3 * 4 1% 5 9% 6 8% 7 19% 8 28% 9 8% 10 25% Mean 7.77 Don't know 1% Not important 3% Important 60% Q10c. Q10d. Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular 0 * - 1% 1 * - 1% % 1% 1% 4 3% 4% 2% 5 10% 7% 13% 6 12% 12% 12% 7 16% 20% 13% 8 22% 19% 25% 9 12% 10% 13% 10 23% 25% 21% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 2% 1% 2% Important 57% 55% 59% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people 0 2% 2% 2% 1 1% 1% 1% 2 * 1% - 3 1% 1% 2% 4 2% 2% 2% 5 8% 7% 9% 6 10% 10% 10% 7 23% 23% 22% 8 24% 22% 27% 9 11% 12% 10% 10 17% 18% 16% Mean Page 75 of 124

76 Don't know 1% 2% - Not important 4% 5% 3% Important 52% 52% 52% Q10e. Q10f. Q10g. Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in supporting local businesses 0 2% 2% 2% % - 2% % 5% 5% 5 11% 11% 10% 6 11% 12% 9% 7 18% 20% 16% 8 22% 21% 23% 9 7% 8% 5% 10 24% 20% 27% Mean Don't know 1% 1% 1% Not important 3% 2% 4% Important 52% 49% 55% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed 0 * - 1% % - 2% 3 2% 2% 2% 4 3% 1% 5% 5 10% 13% 8% 6 9% 10% 8% 7 21% 19% 22% 8 25% 24% 27% 9 7% 6% 7% 10 22% 23% 20% Mean Don't know * 1% - Not important 2% 1% 2% Important 54% 54% 54% Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not Page 76 of 124

77 important at all, and 10 is very important. Investment in flood defences and coastal protection 0 2% 1% 2% 1 * - 1% 2 1% 1% 2% 3 1% 2% 1% 4 4% 2% 5% 5 10% 8% 13% 6 7% 10% 4% 7 18% 17% 20% 8 24% 20% 27% 9 6% 7% 5% 10 24% 27% 20% Mean Don't know 2% 4% 1% Not important 6% 6% 5% Important 54% 55% 52% Q10h. Base size: The Combined Authority would manage a single pot of money to spend in Norfolk and Suffolk. I am going to read out some of the different areas in which this money could be spent. Given there would be a limit to the amount of money available, please could you tell me how important each of these are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not important at all, and 10 is very important. Ensuring young people are either earning or learning 0 * - 1% 1 * - 1% 2 * - 1% 3 1% 2% - 4 1% - 2% 5 6% 5% 6% 6 4% 6% 3% 7 13% 15% 13% 8 26% 25% 27% 9 15% 16% 15% 10 30% 30% 30% Mean Don't know 1% 2% 1% Not important 2% 2% 3% Important 72% 71% 73% Page 77 of 124

78 Appendix E The Online Consultation Response Results and Analysis Methodology Development The Online Survey was originally developed across the three county areas of Suffolk, Norfolk Cambridgeshire and the Peterborough Unitary. It was designed using the IPSOS MORI telephone survey template and wherever possible matches the version used for Suffolk and Norfolk with the only changes being those required due to the differing collection mechanism. Format - The survey asks 14 questions regarding the devolution proposals, in a mixture of closed and free text forms. These were followed by 15 standard Equality & Diversity questions and others questions related to demography. A copy of the online survey is contained in Appendix 1. The Online survey was made available through the dedicated East Anglian Devolution website: A hard copy version of the survey was also provided on request. Responses in this format were then added to the online total. The survey was available throughout the consultation period of July 8 th to August 23 rd. A copy of the survey is contained in Appendix B. Promotion The Consultation and the methods of responding were promoted through a variety of mechanisms to maximise both the overall response rate and demographic range of the two counties. The promotion channels included: County, District and Borough websites. Social Media Twitter, Facebook Press Releases to Suffolk and Norfolk Media Voluntary Sector Organisations Town and Parish Councils Staff, Cllrs Adverts in Press Libraries Timeframe The online consultation was available from the launch of the overall consultation on 11 th July 2016 and ran until 23 rd August Interim Results Throughout the live period interim results were used to review take up and the demography of respondents. Where response rate was low this was highlighted and efforts made to address through for example, media campaigns. Online Survey Results and Analysis In total Suffolk and Norfolk received 2,925 online and hardcopy survey responses. For each question in the survey the number of responses received for each available option and the percentage this represents is provided. For each free text question Page 78 of 124

79 the responses have been analysed into themes with the total responses for a theme, and the percentage this represents for each question, provided along with sample responses. Q1 Which district council area do you live in / are you based? Please select one only: At a county level Suffolk received 1,392 responses and Norfolk 1,528. Five respondents did not select any district council area. Q2: Before today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about devolution within England? Great deal Fair amount Just a little Heard of, but know nothing about it Never heard of it Don t know % 42.5% 38.9% 8.8% 1.5% 0.7% 50.8% stated they knew a great deal or fair amount about devolution, whilst 10.3% stated they had heard little or nothing about it. Q3: To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the principle of devolution? Strongly Support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don t know % 31.6% 9.7% 13.8% 24.9% 0.7% 50.9% stated that they support the principle of devolution whilst 38.7% expressed that they opposed this. Q4: For each of the following, do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority as described above? Working with local councils to develop a new strategy for housing and development in line with existing local plans Decisions are better made nationally Decisions are better made locally Don't know 24.1% 71.% 4.1% Response Total % 69.7% 4.9% 2774 Page 79 of 124

80 Deciding how 130m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes, including affordable housing Creating a transport plan for Norfolk and Suffolk that helps to better coordinate road, rail and bus services Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk Deciding on the best way to roll out smart ticketing for bus and rail travel across Norfolk and Suffolk. (Smart ticketing involves paying for travel electronically using microchips, either through contactless payments or schemes like the Oyster Card in London.) Reviewing further education in Norfolk and Suffolk to help provide young people aged 16 and over with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on apprenticeships and training in Norfolk and Suffolk to produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on adult education and skills training in Norfolk and Suffolk for people aged 19 and over to help produce a workforce with the skills that local employers need Deciding how funding is spent on infrastructure projects, such as improving broadband or transport services, to support economic growth and create jobs in Norfolk and Suffolk Joining up health and social care services so that they better support people and reduce the pressure on existing services Designing a new programme to support those with a health condition or disability and the long-term unemployed back into work % 65.0% 3.8% % 74.6% 3.5% % 55.6% 10.0% % 58.5% 5.9% % 65.6% 5.6% % 62.7% 5.8% % 58.6% 4.0% % 51.0% 4.8% % 41.9% 6.7% Page 80 of

81 Reviewing all land and property held by the public sector and creating a list of land and property available for development in Norfolk and Suffolk Coordinating the work being done to improve flood defences and protect the coastline 32.0% 62.2% 5.8% % 49.2% 3.6% answered 2798 skipped 127 There is greatest support, 74.6%, for Deciding how the budget is spent for maintaining roads in Norfolk and Suffolk to be a decision made locally rather than nationally. This is followed by Working with local councils to develop a new strategy for housing and development in line with existing local plans (71.8%) and Deciding how 130m of new funding is spent to support the building of new homes, including affordable housing (69.7%). Q5: To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? Strongly Support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don t know % 17.0% 10.4% 15.2% 46.8% 0.9% 26.7% of respondents support the election of a mayor whilst 62.0% are opposed. Q6: (in response to Q5, To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal? ) Why do you say that? The responses to this question were analysed and grouped into themes as shown below: Page 81 of 124

82 Q6 -(In response to Q5) Why do you say that? Other Too much for one person/too large/diverse an area 11.5% 14.7% Chairman from within existing authorities/committee Want to know details of deal /not enough info 3.2% 3.9% Waste of money /too many layers of government 41.9% Too much bureaucracy but needed to get extra funding Existing councils to have the money/create unitaries 3.3% 3.5% Single figurehead elected democratically/to be 18.0% Top response themes: Waste of money too many layers of government already/money better spent going straight to services 41.9% (1021) To be elected by all/single figurehead/must be democratic 18.0% (439) Too much power for one person/too large/too diverse an area 14.7% (358) All themes with numbers of respondents and percentages of those who completed the question: Theme % of respondents Number of respondents Single figurehead elected democratically/to be accountable 18.0% 439 Existing councils to have the money/create unitaries instead 3.5% 86 Too much bureaucracy but needed to get extra funding 3.3% 80 Waste of money /too many layers of government 40.9% 1021 Want to know details of deal /not enough info 3.9% 95 Chairman from within existing authorities/committee to lead 3.2% 79 Too much for one person/too large/diverse an area 14.7% 358 Other 11.5% 281 Page 82 of 124

83 Q7: To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected mayor? Strongly Support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don t know % 21.5% 9.4% 14.0% 40.2% 1.5% 34.9% support the proposal of becoming part of a combined authority with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk compared with 54.2% who oppose this. Q8: (In response to Q7, To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected mayor? ) Why do you say that? The responses to this question were analysed and grouped into themes as shown below: Q8 -(In reponse to Q7) Why do you say that? Other 10.1% Want to stay as we are Needs to include all councils Concerns about current councils'/councillors' ability To be implemented democratically/public 6.1% 3.2% 2.3% 1.3% Concerns about the mayor role 15.2% Prefer unitary/powers devolved to exisitng councils 4.2% Authority too big (eg.lose 'local' feel of decision- 33.6% Good for decision-making /democracy/to save 24.1% Top response themes: Concerns with size of authority (eg lose 'local' feel of decision-making/could delay decisions/too much bureaucracy) 33.6% (731) Has to be done for good decision-making democracy/to save money/use local knowledge 24.1% (523) Concerns about the mayor role 15.2% (330) Page 83 of 124

84 All themes with numbers of respondents and percentages of those who completed the question. % of Theme respondents Good for decision-making /democracy/to save money/use local 24.1% 523 knowledge Authority too big (eg. lose 'local' feel of decision-making/could delay decisions/too much bureaucracy and 33.6% 731 cost) Prefer unitary/powers devolved to existing councils 4.2% 92 Concerns about the mayor role 15.2% 330 To be implemented democratically/public vote/referendum 1.3% 28 Concerns about current councils'/councillors' ability to implement Number of respondents 2.3% 49 Needs to include all councils 3.2% 69 Want to stay as we are 6.1% 132 Other 10.1% 220 Q9: There are proposals for how the Combined Authority and directly elected Mayor would take decisions. Here are a number of statements outlining how it is proposed this will be done. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made? Stron gly agree Tend to agre e Neithe r agree nor disagr ee Tend to disagr ee Strong ly disagr ee Don t know Respo nse Total Each member of the Combined Authority, including the Mayor, has a vote. The directly elected Mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the 35.3% 28.7 % Page 84 of % 5.4% 16.7% 4.8% % 19.8 % 6.8% 2.7% 12.1% 4.3%

85 Combined Authority to progress their proposals. Some decisions, such as the Combined Authority asking the Government for new powers and how much the authority would cost to run, would require a majority of members to agree. That majority must include the directly elected Mayor. 32.8% 22.4 % 11.8% 8.5% 19.2% 5.3% answer ed skippe d The highest response to these statements was for The directly elected Mayor cannot make decisions alone and will require the support of a certain number of members of the Combined Authority to progress their proposals, with 74.1% stating that they strongly agreed or tended to agree with the statement. Q10: Anything else you want to tell us about decision making The responses to this question were analysed and grouped into themes as shown below: Q10 -Anything else you want to tell us about decisionmaking. Other Must be accountable/transparent/public engagement Councils are not competent enough Agree to devolution but don't want a Mayor Mayor should have a proper role/power/be impartial Get on with it/comments in Favour Should be a referendum Another layer of government/waste of money Decision-making too slow/remote/should be democratic Against Mayor Against Combined Authority/ Devolution/Want Status 5.5% 2.2% 3.5% 5.0% 2.0% 4.0% 11.1% 12.4% 12.7% 19.5% 22.2% Top response themes: Against Combined Authority/ Want Status Quo 22.2% (263) Mayor should have a proper role/power/be impartial 19.5% (231) Against mayor 12.7% (151) Page 85 of 124

86 All themes with numbers of respondents and percentages of those who completed the question. % of respondents Number of respondents Theme Against Combined Authority/ Devolution/Want Status Quo 22.2% 263 Against Mayor 12.7% 151 Slow/Too remote decision-making 4.0% 48 Another layer of government/waste of money 12.4% 147 Need a referendum 2.0% 24 Get on with it/comments in Favour 5.0% 59 Mayor should have a proper role/power/be 19.5% 231 impartial Agree to devolution but don't want a Mayor 3.5% 41 Councils are not competent enough 2.2% 26 Must be accountable 5.5% 65 Other 11.1% 132 Page 86 of 124

87 Q11: Plans will be put in place for how the new Combined Authority will be held to account. Here are a number of statements outlining how it is proposed this will be done. How important, if at all, is each of these in holding the Combined Authority to account? An independent scrutiny committee that has the power to ask the Mayor and other members of the Combined Authority to attend a meeting to answer questions. This would be made up of councillors from participating councils who are not members of the Combined Authority itself. This scrutiny committee having the power to review any of the decisions made by the Combined Authority. An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority s finances. Essential Very important Fairly important Not very important Not at all important Don t know 53.2% 22.2% 9.2% 2.7% 5.9% 6.8% % 23.6% 10.0% 3.6% 6.2% 6.8% % 19.7% 4.7% 1.0% 4.1% 5.8% Response Total Page 87 of 124

88 Residents living in the Combined Authority Area being able to directly elect the Mayor. 53.7% 14.3% 7.1% 4.1% 12.3% 8.5% A Government assessment every five years. 41.2% 20.7% 15.5% 6.3% 8.1% 8.2% answered 2693 skipped 232 The highest response here was 84.4% stating that An audit committee which would monitor the Combined Authority s finances was either essential or very important. Page 88 of 124

89 Q12: Are there any other ways in which you think the Combined Authority should be held to account? The responses to this question were analysed and grouped into themes as shown below: Top response themes: Q12 -Any other ways the Combined Authority should be held to account Against a Combined Authority/mayor 24.7% (277) Involve the public/elections/no confidence votes/public meetings 18.4% (207) Other Audit/independent scrutiny committee (made up of members of the public? Business community?) Cost/Layers of Government/bureaucracy 16.5% (185) All members accountable Involve the public/elections/no confidence votes/public meetings Transparency/ Published Data 7.3% 6.9% 11.6% 11.0% 18.4% Against a Combined Authority /mayor 24.7% Peer/Government Review 3.7% Cost/Layers of Government/Bureaucracy 16.5% All themes with numbers of respondents and percentages of those who completed the question. Theme % of respondents Number of respondents Cost/Layers of Government/Bureaucracy 16.5% 184 Peer/Government Review 3.7% 41 Against a Combined Authority 24.7% 277 Transparency/ Published Data 11.0% 123 Involve the public/elections/no confidence votes/public meetings 18.4% 207 All members accountable 6.9% 78 Audit/independent scrutiny committee 11.6% 130 Other 7.3% 82 Page 89 of 124

90 Q13: How Important are each of the following priorities Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband Investment in job creation for local people Investment in housing and affordable homes in particular Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people Investment in supporting local businesses Improving employment opportunities for those with a health condition or disability % 0.5 % 1.2 % 1.6 % 1.9 % 6.4% 5.6% 9.4% 18.4 % 11.0 % 39.0% Respons e Total mean averag e score % 6.5% 31.1% % % % % % % % % % 7.2% 31.2% % % % % % % % % % 0.8 % 1.2 % 2.5 % 3.3 % 9.0% 8.0% 13.6 % 16.0 % 11.4 % 29.5% % 17.8% % % % % % % % % % % 20.0% % % % % % % % % % Page 90 of 124

91 and the long-term unemployed. Investment in flood defences and coastal protection Ensuring young people are either earning or learning % 9.4% 23.9% % % % % % % % % % 7.2% 30.7% % % % % % % % % answere d 2663 skipped 262 The highest mean average score here was 7.8 for Investment in physical infrastructure, such as transport or broadband, followed by 7.5 for Investment in job creation for local people and 7.4 for Investment in public transport to run services which better meet the needs of local people. Page 91 of 124

92 Q14: Is there anything else you would like to add? The responses to this question were analysed and grouped into themes as shown below: Q14 -Anything else you would like to add? Other Support/positive comments All areas to be treated equally/large towns should not Concerns re LEP/business involvement Will make area isolated/should not just be Norfolk and Referendum/democratic vote needed Transparency/communication/public engagement Oppose combined authority/mayor Cost increase/too much bureaucracy/too remote Should improve services/areas want to see investment Prefer unitary/power devolved to districts/status quo 2.3% 3.9% 1.9% 1.6% 4.3% 7.9% 10.9% 12.8% 17.2% 16.1% 21.1% Top response themes: Should improve services/areas want to see investment/included 21.1% (221) Oppose combined authority/mayor 17.2% (180) Cost increase/too much bureaucracy/too remote 16.1% (169) All themes with numbers of respondents and percentages of those who completed the question. % of Theme respondents Prefer unitary/power devolved to districts/status quo 10.9% 114 Should improve services/areas want to see investment 21.1% 221 Cost increase/too much bureaucracy/too remote 16.1% 169 Oppose combined authority/mayor 17.2% 180 Transparency/communication/public engagement 4.3% 45 Referendum/democratic vote needed 1.6% 17 Will make area isolated/should not just be Norfolk and Suffolk/include all areas in Norfolk Page 92 of 124 Number of respondents 7.9% 83 Concerns re LEP/business involvement 1.9% 20 All areas to be treated equally/large towns should not get most of money 3.9% 41

93 Support/positive comments 2.3% 24 Other 12.8% 134 Page 93 of 124

94 Appendix F The Norfolk County Council Leaflet Page 94 of 124

95 Page 95 of 124

96 Appendix G Norfolk County Council Leaflet Response Results and Analysis Methodology Format As part of the consultation process Norfolk County Council sent a Devolution Leaflet to all residents in the county. This leaflet went to 406,345 households during week commencing 18 th July. An additional 1,650 were sent to County Council outlets, including all Norfolk libraries. The leaflet comprised of information on the devolution proposals and links to further information. It also included a return form and one question: If you have any comments about the proposals for devolution in Norfolk and Suffolk outlined in this leaflet please write them in below: A free post address was provided to return completed leaflets. All returns received before 26 th August were included in the results. A copy of this leaflet is attached at Appendix F. Responses to the Devolution Leaflet In total 1,678 completed forms were received back by the close of the consultation period. Devolution Leaflet Results and Analysis All the leaflets were also analysed to ascertain if the sender opposed or supported Devolution, based on tone or nature of the comments made. This resulted in 79.5% of leaflets seen as opposed to Devolution, with 20.5% in support. Theme Highlights Theme % of leaflets No. of leaflets Don't want another layer of bureaucracy/cost issues 37.8% 635 Don't want devolution 12.8% 215 Don't see the need for a mayor/too costly 10.4% 175 Not a democratic decision/referendum needed 2.7% 45 Concerns about impact of leaving EU 1.7% 28 Positive comments 12.5% 209 Area too large/too diverse/needs of 2 counties differ/would lose identity 5.4% 90 Spend money on existing services/authorities/nhs/unitary authority 4.4% 73 Local decision making better (districts/boroughs/towns/parishes 3.2% 53 Concerns that councils not up to it 3.7% 62 Should include all districts/ other areas e.g. Cambridgeshire 3.0% 51 Other 2.5% 42 Page 96 of 124

97 Summary of themes from leaflets Other Should include all districts/ other areas eg Cambs Concerns that councils not up to it Local decision making better Spend money on existing Aea too large/too diverse/needs of 2 counties Positive comments Concerns about impact of leaving EU Not a democratic decision/referendum needed Don't see the need for a mayor/too costly Don't want devolution Don't want another layer of bureaucracy/cost issues 2.5% 3.0% 3.7% 3.2% 4.4% 5.4% 1.7% 2.7% 10.4% 12.5% 12.8% 37.8% Page 97 of 124

98 Appendix H Written Correspondence (Letters and s) Response Results and Analysis Methodology In addition to the Online Survey a feedback address HaveYourSay@norfolk.gov.uk was provided throughout the consultation period on the East Anglian Devolution website and the leaflets sent to Norfolk Households. Also a freepost address was provided on the Norfolk leaflet for postal correspondence. These were collated and analysed with the s. All the s and letters were also analysed to ascertain if the sender opposed or supported Devolution, based on tone or nature of the comments made. This resulted in 76.8% of letters and s seen as opposed to Devolution, with 23.2% in support. Letters and s Results and Analysis Responses levels for Letters and s In total 112 s and letters were received. Responses were then analysed by theme. Theme Highlights % of s/letters No. of s/letters Theme Don't want another layer of bureaucracy/cost issues 32.0% 58 Don't want devolution 13.8% 25 Don't see the need for a mayor/too costly 8.8% 16 Not a democratic decision/referendum needed 6.1% 11 Concerns about impact of leaving EU 2.2% 4 Positive comments 8.3% 15 Area too large/too diverse/needs of 2 counties differ/would lose identity 4.4% 8 Spend money on existing services/authorities/nhs/unitary authority 4.4% 8 Local decision making better (districts/boroughs/towns/parishes 8.3% 15 Concerns that councils not up to it 2.8% 5 Should include all districts/ other areas e.g. Cambs 3.9% 7 Other 5.0% 9 Page 98 of 124

99 Summary of themes from responses Other Should include all districts/ other areas eg Cambs Concerns that councils not up to it Local decision making better Spend money on existing Aea too large/too diverse/needs of 2 counties Positive comments Concerns about impact of leaving EU Not a democratic decision/referendum needed Don't see the need for a mayor/too costly Don't want devolution Don't want another layer of bureaucracy/cost issues 5.0% 3.9% 2.8% 8.3% 4.4% 4.4% 8.3% 2.2% 6.1% 8.8% 13.8% 32.0% Page 99 of 124

100 Appendix I Stakeholder Responses The following organisations indicated their support. Business 1. A & B Insurance Brokers 2. ActivLives 3. Adapt Low Carbon Group 4. Adnams Plc 5. ADO15 Limited 6. Aker Solutions 7. Anglia Farmers 8. Arnolds Keys LLP 9. Ashtons Legal 10. Auditel 11. Aviation Skills Partnership 12. Aviva Insurance UK Ltd 13. Axa Insurance 14. Barclays 15. Beech Architects 16. Bire 17. Birketts LLP 18. Blue Ltd. 19. Blue Star Human Resources 20. BMS Imaging Ltd 21. Bowyer 22. Briar Chemicals 23. British Racing School 24. BT Adastral Park 25. Building Partnerships Limited 26. Burland Technology Solutions 27. Business Doctors (Norwich) 28. Business Writers Limited 29. Carbs Coaching 30. Caroline Gould Events 31. Castle Mall Shopping Centre 32. Castons 33. Century Logistics Ltd 34. Chemanglia Ltd 35. Citrus Security Shredding 36. Collison and associates limited 37. Content Consultants Ltd 38. Create Consulting Engineers Ltd 39. CWP Architectural Services 40. Dynamique Consulting 41. East Anglia Federation of Small Businesses 42. East of England Business Group 43. East of England CBI 44. East of England Co-operative 45. East of England Energy Group (EEEGR) 46. Easy Software UK Plc Page 100 of 124

101 47. Ellisons Solicitors 48. Ensors Chartered Accountants Ipswich 49. Feilden & Mawson Architects LLP 50. Fleximise 51. Flibl 52. Free Rein Ltd 53. Gillies Associates Limited 54. Gipping Construction Ltd 55. Great Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce 56. Greenwood&Bell 57. Honingham Thorpe Farms 58. Howes Percival LLP 59. Hughes electrical 60. Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd 61. Innovation Martlesham 62. Institute of Directors (IoD) (Suffolk Branch) 63. Institution of Civil Engineers 64. Intu Chapelfield 65. Ipswich Building Society 66. Jackson Civil Engineering Group 67. Johns Slater & Haward 68. Kent Carlyle Wealth Management Ltd 69. Leading Lives 70. Leathes Prior 71. Lime Skills CIC 72. Lintott- Pioneering Service 73. Lloyds Bank 74. Marianne Muir Ltd 75. Migration Solutions Holdings Limited 76. MIGSOLV 77. MLM 78. MLM Consulting Engineers Limited 79. Mole Projects 80. Moneyfacts Group PLC 81. Naked Element Ltd. 82. Neontribe Ltd 83. Network Christina 84. New Anglia LEP/ Norfolk Chamber of Commerce/ Suffolk Chamber of Commerce 85. New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership for Norfolk and Suffolk (CBI) 86. New Meaning Limited 87. Norfolk Chamber of Commerce 88. Norfolk Safety CIC 89. Norfolk Training Services (NTS) 90. Norwich Airport Limited 91. Norwich Research Park LLP 92. Oakmere Solutions Ltd 93. Patrice Love Consultancy Ltd 94. Performance Plus Partnership 95. Persimmon Homes Anglia 96. Petans Limited Page 101 of 124

102 97. Poundfield Products Ltd 98. Prettys Solicitors LLP 99. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 100. R G Carter (Southern) 101. R G Carter Ltd 102. Remedy For Business Ltd 103. Roost Hotels 104. Safe Secure Locker Services Ltd 105. Seajacks UK Limited 106. SeanClark.com Ltd 107. Spirit Motorsport Ltd 108. Spring 109. St. James Place Group 110. Stepping Out 111. STM Packaging Group Ltd 112. Suffolk Family Carers 113. Suffolk Norse 114. Tax Solutions East Anglia Limited 115. TCHC 116. TechEast 117. The Centre for Advanced Knowledge Engineering 118. The Gate MC Ltd 119. The Original Cottage Company 120. The Point 121. The Point (UK) td 122. Tin Can Digital 123. Vertas Group Limited 124. Visit East Anglia 125. Warren Services 126. West Norfolk Chamber of Commerce 127. Westover Landscapes Landscape Architecture 128. WhiteSpace Norwich 129. WLP 130. Yellow Brick Road solutions Limited Other Stakeholder Groups 1. Big C Norfolk's Cancer Charity 2. City College Norwich Students' Union 3. CLA East 4. Community Action Norfolk (CAN)/Community Action Norfolk 5. Great Yarmouth College 6. Healthwatch Norfolk 7. Historic England 8. Homes and Communities Agency 9. Local Government Ombudsman 10. NHS - Great Yarmouth and Waveney CCG 11. NHS - Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG/ West Suffolk CCG 12. Norfolk Youth Parliament 13. Older People s Strategic Partnership 14. OPEN Youth Trust 15. Orwell Ahead 16. RSPB Page 102 of 124

103 17. Suffolk Association of Local Councils and Norfolk Association of Local Councils 18. Suffolk New College 19. Unison Eastern Region 20. University of East Anglia 21. University of Suffolk 22. West Suffolk College A sample of the letters is attached below. Page 103 of 124

104 Page 104 of 124

105 Page 105 of 124

106 Page 106 of 124

107 Page 107 of 124

108 Page 108 of 124

109 Page 109 of 124

110 Page 110 of 124

111 Page 111 of 124

112 Page 112 of 124