Breckland Draft Recommendations

Explore our Draft Recommendations for new wards in Breckland

Overview

The Commission has published draft recommendations for new wards in Breckland.

This map displays our proposals. Scroll down to find out how we arrived at these recommendations.

Click on the layer list in the bottom right hand corner of this map to switch between the different boundaries

South East

East Harling

The Council and the member of the public put forward identical proposals for a single-councillor East Harling ward which would have 4% fewer electors than the district average by 2030. This ward comprises the parish of East Harling and secures good electoral equality, and we are adopting it as part of our draft recommendations.

 Banham & Guiltcross and Buckenham & Quidenham

The Council put forward proposals for single-councillor Banham & Kenninghall, Buckenham & Quidenham and Guiltcross wards, which would have 7% fewer, 1% fewer and 14% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. The member of the public put forward a two-councillor Guiltcross ward which would cover much of the area of the Council’s Banham & Kenninghall and Guiltcross wards, but also included New Buckenham parish.

We note that the member of the public’s proposal separates New Buckenham parish from Old Buckenham, which the Council stated should remain in a single ward to reflect community cohesion. We also note that these parishes currently sit in a ward together and are basing our draft recommendation for this area on the Council’s proposals.

However, we have some concerns that the Council’s Guiltcross ward has relatively poor electoral equality, with 14% fewer electors than the average. We considered combining this with East Harling ward, to create a two-councillor ward which would have 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, but concluded that East Harling is more urban and works well as a stand-alone ward. Therefore, we are combining the Council’s single-councillor Banham & Kenninghall and Guiltcross wards to create a two-councillor Banham & Guiltcross ward. This would have 11% fewer electors by 2030. We welcome local comments on this proposal, but note that some of the parishes are already in a ward together and there are good internal road links between these and the other parishes.

 As stated above, we note that the Council’s proposed Buckenham & Quidenham ward retains both Buckenham parishes in a single ward. We also note that there are good roads links between the parishes in the proposed ward and we are basing our draft recommendations on this ward. However, we propose an amendment to address an issue in the neighbouring Wayland ward. We are transferring Snetterton parish to Wayland to improve electoral equality there, which has been affected by changes we propose to the boundary of Watton ward. Although this worsens electoral equality in Buckenham & Quidenham to 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, we consider that Snetterton parish has better links to neighbouring Shropham parish in Wayland ward, as the A11 effectively separates most of the residents from the Buckenham & Quidenham ward.

Our draft recommendations are for single-councillor Buckenham & Quidenham and East Harling wards and a two-councillor Banham & Guiltcross ward. These wards would have 9% fewer, 4% fewer and 11% fewer electors than the district average by 2030.

 Ringmere & Hockham

The Council and the member of the public put forward identical proposals for a single-councillor Ringmere & Hockham ward. This ward secures good electoral equality and has good internal road links. Another member of the public suggested that the Arlington Way area of Brettenham parish should be in a Thetford ward. While we can see some logic to this, we note that it is somewhat separate from the rest of Thetford and would require the creation of a parish ward in Brettenham parish. Since we did not receive any other support for it, we are not transferring it as part of the draft recommendations, but would welcome further views during this consultation.

We did not receive any other comments on this area so are adopting the Council’s and the member of the public’s proposals for a single-councillor Ringmere & Hockham ward without amendment. This ward will have 1% fewer electors than the district average by 2030.

Thetford

Thetford Boudica, Thetford Burrell, Thetford Castle and Thetford Priory

The Council and the member of the public put forward identical proposals for these wards, which were based on modifications to the existing wards. All proposed wards secured good electoral equality. Another member of the public put forward comments, some of which were reflected in the other proposals, including the incorporation of the Kingsfleet development in an urban Thetford ward. However, this member of the public also argued that Arlington Way should be included in an urban ward and that rural areas of Thetford should be in a rural ward. They argued that wards should try and avoid splitting areas covered by residents’ associations, noting that the Redcastle Furze Estate is divided and that the Croxton Estate would be better served in a ward with other estates on the Croxton Road. Another member of the public observed that the existing Priory ward contains too many electors.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting that the proposals from the Council and the member of the public secure good electoral equality and generally used clear boundaries, including reflecting another member of the public’s suggestion that the Kingsfleet development should be in an urban ward.

We have considered the argument about dividing areas covered by residents’ associations. In the case of the Redcastle Furze Estate, it contains too may electors to be included in a single ward, without the need to redraw boundaries across Thetford. We are not persuaded to do this.

However, we are persuaded that the Croxton Estate would be better served in Thetford Boudica ward, noting that electors in this area have no direct access into Thetford Priory ward, as Croxton Road is blocked off where the A1066 cuts across it. However, transferring this area requires an amendment to retain good electoral equality. We are therefore retaining the area to the south of Vicarage Road in Thetford Priory ward, while putting the area to the north in Thetford Boudica ward. We acknowledge that this divides the area covered by the Vicarage Road Residents’ Association and did examine retaining the whole of the area to the south of the A1066 in Thetford Priory ward. However, this would result in that ward having 12% more electors than the district average by 2030. We are not persuaded to accept this poor level of electoral equality in light of an alternative which we consider better reflects our criteria across Thetford. We are therefore using the Vicarage Road boundary.

Finally, we examined the argument for putting Arlington Way in a Thetford ward. While we can see some logic to this, we note that it is somewhat separate from the rest of Thetford and would require the creation of a parish ward in Brettenham parish. In addition, it would worsen electoral equality in Thetford Castle and Ringmere & Hockham wards to 8% more and 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. Since we have not received any other evidence to support this and the worsening of electoral equality, we are not adopting it, but would welcome further views during this consultation.

Our draft recommendations are for two-councillor Thetford Boudica, Thetford Burrell, Thetford Castle and Thetford Priory wards, which would have 6% more, equal to the average, 4% more and 4% more electors than the district average by 2030, respectively

Attleborough and Wayland

Attleborough Burgh & Haverscroft, Attleborough Queens and Besthorpe

The Council put forward proposals for single-councillor Besthorpe and two-councillor Attleborough Burgh & Haverscroft and Attleborough Queens wards for this area, all of which would secure good electoral equality. Its Attleborough Burgh & Haverscroft ward is the existing ward, which it argued has good electoral equality and community cohesion. Its proposals for Attleborough Queens and Besthorpe wards effectively split the existing three-councillor Attleborough Queens & Besthorpe ward, arguing that growth in this area has led to Besthorpe parish increasingly becoming part of ‘greater’ Attleborough and that this enables the creation of a single-councillor ward. It decided to remove a small area of Great Ellingham parish from its Attleborough Queens ward (where this area currently sits), noting that while the area does have some links to Attleborough, it is better united with the rest of Great Ellingham parish.

The member of the public proposed the retention of the existing three-councillor Attleborough Queens & Besthorpe and two-councillor Attleborough Burgh & Haverscroft wards. While these wards of good electoral equality the member of the public did not put forward any evidence to support their retention.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received in this area. We note that with the exception of the small area of Great Ellingham parish, which the member of the public retained in their three-councillor Attleborough Queens & Besthorpe ward, either proposal for this area could be adopted as they cover the same area. On balance, given the evidence from the Council for creating a Besthorpe ward, to reflect its increasing links with Attleborough, we are persuaded to adopt the Council’s proposals for this area. We also agree that the small area of Great Ellingham parish, currently in an Attleborough ward, should be reunited with the rest of the parish. However, we welcome local comments on these proposals.

Our draft recommendations are for single-councillor Besthorpe and two-councillor Attleborough Burgh & Haverscroft and Attleborough Queens wards which would have 3% fewer, 4% fewer and 8% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

Ellingham & Rocklands and Wayland

The Council put forward proposals for single-councillor Ellingham & Rocklands and Wayland wards for this area. It argued that the options for Ellingham & Rocklands were limited by its position on the edge of the district and Attleborough to the east and Carbrooke in the west. It noted that its proposals keep the Ellingham parishes in the same ward. It also noted that given the size of its electorate, it is not possible to put Hockham parish in its Wayland ward, instead putting this parish in neighbouring Ringmere & Hockham ward.

The member of the public proposed a two-councillor Wayland ward, highlighting the roads that link the constituent parishes.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that the Council’s proposals for single-councillor wards reflect its desire, set out in paragraph 31, to have small wards with as few parishes as possible, whereas the member of the public creates a two-councillor ward. As discussed in the Watton and Ashill section below, we have decided to adopt the proposal from the member of the public to include an area of Griston parish located within the Blenheim Grange area of Carbrooke parish in our Watton ward, as it has no direct links to Griston parish. This decision means the Council’s single-councillor Wayland ward would have 12% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, while the member of the public’s two-councillor Wayland ward, which incorporates the Griston parish amendment, would have 9% fewer.

Given our decision to adopt the Council’s Buckenham & Quidenham ward (discussed in the South East section, above), we would need to add Shropham parish to the member of the public’s Wayland ward, which actually improves electoral equality to equal to the average.

However, we also note that the 12% fewer electors in the Council’s Wayland ward can be improved by adding Snetterton parish, improving electoral equality to 4% fewer electors by 2030. Having visited the area, we have concluded that Snetterton has good links to neighbouring Shropham parish, which is in the Council’s Wayland ward, with most of the electors lying to the west of the A11. On balance, we are persuaded that a modified version of the Council’s proposals provide compact wards, with good internal road links, while securing good electoral equality.

Our draft recommendations are for single-councillor Ellingham & Rocklands and Wayland wards with 6% more and 4% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

Swaffham and Forest

Forest

The Council proposed single-councillor Weeting & Forest and Wissey & Gadder wards for this area. It argued that it had tried to reduce the area covered by the Weeting & Forest ward, much of which is sparsely populated. It also stated that given the size of the electorate, it had been unable to place Mundford and Weeting-with-Broomhill parishes in the same ward while retaining a good level of electoral equality.

 The member of the public proposed a two-councillor Forest ward covering much of the same area, highlighting its sparse nature and roads that connected the area.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We have examined the member of the public’s proposals. However, as discussed in paragraphs 31 to 33, our options in this area are limited having adopted elements of the Council’s proposals in surrounding wards.

 We have also examined the Council’s proposals, but have concerns about the lack of internal road links within its Weeting & Forest ward. We note that Weeting-with-Broomhill and Lynford parishes do not have direct road access to the remainder of the ward, without going through its neighbouring Wissey & Gadder ward. However, we note that it is possible to combine the Council’s Weeting & Forest and Wissey & Gadder wards to create a two-councillor ward. Although this ward covers a large area, it would have two councillors, and from our visit to the area we note that there are good road links through it. We therefore propose a two-councillor Forest ward, which would have 3% more electors than the district average by 2030.

 Swaffham North and Swaffham South

The Council proposed a three-councillor Swaffham ward, surrounded to the north, south and west by a single-councillor Nar Valley ward. These wards would have 9% more and 3% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. The Council stated that it had considered, but rejected, dividing Swaffham into two and linking the parishes to the north and south to their nearest respective halves. The member of the public proposed retaining the existing three-councillor Swaffham and Nar Valley wards, offering no supporting evidence.

 Another member of the public argued that Beachamwell parish should be in the existing Bedingfeld ward, much of which is covered by the Council’s proposed Wissey & Gadder ward. They added that road links from Beachamwell to Swaffham can be flooded in winter. A different member of the public stated that Sporle with Palgrave parish should be in Swaffham ward.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that the existing wards that the member of the public proposed to retain secure good electoral equality. However, as discussed in paragraphs 31 to 33, our options in this area are limited because we adopted elements of the Council’s proposals in surrounding wards, which were supported by slightly stronger evidence in the Council’s overall submission.

While we see some logic in the argument for a three-councillor Swaffham ward based on the whole of Swaffham parish, we are concerned about the Council’s Nar Valley ward, noting that some of the constituent parishes have no direct road links, with Swaffham sitting between them. We note that the Council considered, but rejected, north and south Swaffham wards taking in some of the surrounding parishes. However, we believe such an option has merit and our visit to the area confirmed that the parishes in the south link well into the south of Swaffham, while those in the north link well into the north. We also note that the existing Swaffham polling districts provide a reasonable dividing line in the parish, retaining the whole of the town centre in a single ward, while also ensuring electoral quality. Therefore, we are proposing a two-councillor Swaffham North ward, that includes Narford, Narborough and South Acre parishes and a two-councillor Swaffham South that includes Beachamwell, Cockley Cley, North Pickenham and South Pickenham parishes. These wards would have 3% more and 7% more electors than the district average by 2030.

We note the comment from a member of the public that Beachamwell parish should be in the existing Bedingfeld ward. However, our draft recommendations do not retain Bedingfeld ward and, although we note concerns about winter flooding on the road between Beachamwell parish and Swaffham, we consider it has generally good links to Swaffham and the other parishes in our Swaffham South ward. We also note the argument that Sporle with Palgrave should be in a Swaffham ward, but this parish contains too many electors to secure electoral equality for the area and we are including it in Launditch ward.

Our draft recommendations for this area are for two-councillor Swaffham North and Swaffham South wards, with 3% more and 7% more electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

Watton and Ashill

Haggard de Toni and Watton

The Council proposed single-councillor Ashill and Carbrooke wards and two-councillor Haggard de Toni and Watton wards for this area. It argued that it was necessary to split Watton ward, but that its proposal enables Saham Toney parish to be in a ward with part of Watton parish, noting that there is a ‘blurred geographical boundary’ between the areas. It also argued that its Carbrooke ward creates a ward with a ‘separate village identity’, separating it from the more urban Watton.

The member of the public proposed a different split of Watton, creating two two-councillor Watton East & Blenheim Grange and Watton West wards and a single-councillor Saham Toney ward that runs across the north of Watton and includes Carbrooke, Ovington and Saham Toney parishes. Their Watton East & Blenheim Grange ward would include the more urban Blenheim Grange area of Carbrooke parish and a small area of the same development currently in Griston parish. Another member of the public argued that Saham Toney should be linked to Watton. Watton Town Council rejected the Council’s proposal and argued that the west area of Carbrooke parish should be included in a Watton ward, as the member of the public suggested.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting that both district-wide schemes divide Watton parish between two wards. We concur with the member of the public’s argument that the Blenheim Grange area of Griston parish should be linked to the rest of Blenheim Grange. Although this requires the creation of a parish ward in Griston, we consider this can be justified given the clear links to the rest of the Blenheim Grange development.

We note that the member of the public’s proposal to include all of Blenheim Grange in a Watton ward, supported by comments from Watton Town Council, would require the creation of a parish ward in Carbrooke parish. However, we are less persuaded by this, as it would separate a significant portion of Carbrooke parish, despite that area being more urban, like neighbouring Watton. Additionally, the proposal connects Saham Toney parish to Carbrooke rather than to the Watton ward, as the Council suggests, and while there is a direct road link in the proposed ward, Watton parish lies between them. While the Council argues that its proposals reflect Carbrooke parish’s ‘village identity’, it’s important to note that many electors in Carbrooke actually reside in the urban Blenheim Grange area on the edge of Watton.

In light of these considerations, we explored the option of combining the Council’s Watton and Carbrooke wards, along with a small area of Griston parish proposed by the member of the public, to create a three-councillor Watton ward. Although Carbrooke is primarily rural, the Blenheim Grange development within it is more urban in nature like Watton and as with the Council’s argument for Saham Toney, the geographical boundary is ‘blurred’. We believe this proposal offers a better balance of the statutory criteria, allowing the Saham Toney area to link to the west of Watton. We welcome feedback both on this proposal and on the member of the public’s proposal for separating the Blenheim Grange area from Carbrooke parish and linking it solely to a two-councillor Watton East & Blenheim Grange, while connecting the remainder of Carbrooke parish to Saham Toney and Ovington parishes in a single-councillor ward.

Our draft recommendations are for a two-councillor Haggard de Toni and three-councillor Watton ward, with equal to the average and 1% more electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

 Ashill

The Council proposed a single-councillor Ashill ward comprising Ashill, Bradenham and Holme Hale parishes. It stated that its proposals for this ward were determined by its position between Swaffham and Watton and the wish to include Saham Toney parish in a ward with Watton.

The member of the public proposed a very different configuration in this area, retaining the existing Ashill ward, less Hilborough parish which they transferred to a Forest ward. They did not offer any specific information to support this ward.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. As discussed in paragraphs 31 to 33, our options in this area are limited because we adopted elements of the Council’s proposals in surrounding wards, which were supported by slightly stronger evidence in its overall submission. However, we note that the Council’s Ashill ward has good electoral equality, clear boundaries and good internal links, so we are adopting it as part of our draft recommendations. Our single-councillor Ashill ward would have 5% more electors than the district average by 2030.

North West

Hermitage, Launditch, Necton & Fransham and Springvale

The Council proposed four single-member wards for this area, while the member of the public proposed the retention of the existing wards. The Council provided some limited comments on its proposals, arguing that the options in this area are limited by its position at the edge of the district and with Swaffham to the south and Dereham to the east. It stated that its Hermitage ward broadly reflects the existing ward, but with the addition of Brisley and Gateley parishes, which it considered would sit well in the new ward. Its Launditch ward retains the links between the Dunham parishes. It originally planned to link Necton parish with Bradenham parish but noted that this resulted in an 11% variance, so instead linked it to Fransham. Its Springvale ward is focused on the parishes along the road linking Litcham and Gressenhall. Mileham parish was added to enable Litcham and Kempstone parishes to remain in Launditch ward.

 The member of the public did not put forward any comments on their decision to retain the existing wards, but we note that despite the change in council size, they all have good electoral equality. Necton Parish Council expressed support for single-councillor wards.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting that the existing wards, as proposed by the member of the public, secure good electoral equality. However, as discussed in paragraphs 31 to 33, our options in this area are limited because we adopted elements of the Council’s proposals in surrounding wards, which were supported by slightly stronger evidence in the Council’s overall submission.

 We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposals for this area, noting that they secure good electoral equality and include parishes with good road links.

 Our draft recommendations are for single-member Hermitage, Launditch, Necton & Fransham and Springvale wards which would have 2% fewer, 1% more, equal to the average and 7% more electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

Mattishall, Scarning and Shipdham

Mattishall, Scarning, Shipdham and Upper Yare

The Council proposed single-councillor Mattishall, Scarning and Shipdham wards, all based on single parishes of the respective names. These wards would have 6% more, 2% more and 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. It proposed a single-councillor Upper Yare ward comprising Cranworth, Gravestone, Reymerston & Thuxton, Hardingham, Whinburgh & Westfield and Yaxham parishes. This ward would have 5% more electors than the district average by 2030. It stated that Mattishall, Scarning and Shipdham parishes all contained sufficient electors to be single-councillor wards. It stated that its proposals for Upper Yare ward were informed by the area being bordered by the more urban Dereham, Mattishall and Scarning, with the addition of the district boundary.

The member of the public proposed the same single-councillor Scarning ward, but a two-councillor Mitford ward, covering the Council’s Shipdham ward, part its Upper Yare ward and Bradenham parish. They also proposed a two-councillor Mattishall ward comprising the Tuddenham parishes and Hockering, Mattishall and Yaxham parishes. They stated that the Mattishall ward covered a ‘similar’ area to an earlier ‘Two Rivers ward’, while the parishes in the Mitford ward are linked by the A1075 and B1135. Another member of the public stated that Scarning parish should form a ward.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that the Council’s proposals for four single-councillor wards, including three comprising single parishes, secure good electoral equality. The remaining Upper Yare ward secures good electoral equality and has good internal road links. As discussed in paragraphs 31 to 33, our options in this area are limited because, in adopting elements of the Council’s proposals in surrounding wards, we relied on the slightly stronger evidence presented in the Council’s submission overall. We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposals without amendment.

Our draft recommendations are for single-councillor Mattishall, Scarning, Shipdham and Upper Yare wards. These wards would have 6% more, 2% more, 9% fewer and 5% more electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

Dereham and North East

Dereham Neatherd, Dereham Toftwood and Dereham Withburga

The Council proposed a single-councillor Dereham & Hoe and two-councillor Dereham Neatherd, Dereham Toftwood and Dereham Withburga wards, which would have 6% fewer, 4% fewer, 6% more and 4% more electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. It stated that Dereham is entitled to seven councillors which it proposed dividing into three two-councillor wards and a single-councillor ward. Its two-councillor wards secure good electoral equality. However, it noted that its single-councillor Dereham & Hoe ward required additional electors to secure electoral equality, so it included Hoe & Worthing parish.

The member of the public proposed the retention of the existing wards for Dereham, which all secure good electoral equality. They did not put forward any evidence to support these wards. A number of members of the public put forward comments about Hoe & Worthing, expressing concerns about any changes to the parish or its boundaries. However, they were not specific about these concerns. 

We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the Council’s proposal to included Hoe & Worthing parish in its Dereham & Hoe ward will secure electoral equality in this ward. However, our visit to the area suggested that the rural Hoe & Worthing parish would be better in a rural ward as it currently is. We are therefore putting Hoe & Worthing parish in Wensum ward.

While this worsens electoral equality in the Council’s Dereham & Hoe ward to 16% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, we note that the member of the public’s proposals to retain the existing wards secures good electoral equality, while leaving Hoe & Worthing in a rural ward. Their proposals result in seven councillors for Dereham, as the Council suggests, but creates two two-councillor wards and a three-councillor ward, rather than a single-councillor ward and three two-councillor wards. We consider that these wards create a good east-west split to the parish, while retaining the compact Dereham Neatherd in the south that both the Council and member of the public proposed retaining. We are therefore adopting the member of the public’s proposal for retaining the existing wards in Dereham.

Our draft recommendations are for two-councillor Dereham Toftwood and Dereham Withburga wards and a three-councillor Dereham Neatherd ward. These wards would have 6% more, 2% more and 7% fewer electors than the district average by 2023, respectively.

 

Elmham & Beetley, Two Rivers, Upper Wensum and Wensum

The Council proposed single-councillor Elmham & Beetley, Two Rivers, Upper Wensum and Wensum wards for this area. These wards would have 10% more, 5% fewer, 13% fewer and 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. It stated that its proposals for this area were difficult to draw up, but concluded that it was better to join the larger parishes of Beetley and Elmham in a ward, so they did not dominate the smaller surrounding parishes. Its Two Rivers ward ‘reinstates’ an old name in a ward comprising smaller rural parishes. It stated that it was not possible to include Mattishall in this ward given its size; however, these wards could have been combined to create a two-councillor ward. It acknowledged that its Upper Wensum ward has relatively poor electoral equality, but that given its location in the district options were limited

 The member of the public proposed the retention of the existing two-councillor Lincoln ward to the north and west of Dereham. They proposed a single-councillor Upper Wensum ward from the north area of the existing two-councillor ward of that name. Finally, they proposed a West Eynford ward from part of the remainder of the existing Upper Wensum ward. These wards would have 2% more, equal to the average and equal to the average electors than the district average by 2030, respectively. The member of the public offered no evidence to support the existing Lincoln ward and only a list of parishes in the Upper Wensum ward and explanation for the West Eynford ward name. As stated in the section above, a number of respondents expressed concerns about the impact on Hoe & Worthing parish, although they were not specific about these concerns.

 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that the member of the public’s proposals secure better electoral equality than the Council’s. However, as discussed in paragraphs 31 to 33, our options in this area are limited because, in adopting elements of the Council’s proposals in surrounding wards, we relied on the slightly stronger evidence presented in the Council’s submission overall. We are therefore basing our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposals.

 However, we propose two amendments. Firstly, as discussed in the Dereham section above, we are not including Hoe & Worthing parish in a Dereham ward and are instead including it in Wensum ward. Our visit to Hoe & Worthing suggested the parish would be better served in the rural Wensum ward, rather than an urban Dereham ward. This amendment improves electoral equality in Wensum ward, enabling us to transfer Bylaugh parish to Upper Wensum ward, improving electoral equality there to 10% fewer electors than the district average by 2030. Again, our visit to the area suggested that this parish has good links into the Upper Wensum ward and indeed it is linked to many of the parishes in the ward as part of the existing ward. Our revised single-councillor Upper Wensum and Wensum wards would have 10% fewer and 2% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.

 We are adopting the Council’s single-councillor Elmham & Beetley and Two Rivers wards without amendment. These would have 10% more and 5% fewer electors than the district average by 2030, respectively.